Back
"Stop Chasing Couples": Allahabad HC Quashes FIR, Blasts UP Police for Probing Marriages
In a resounding defense of personal freedom, the has quashed an FIR against a young married couple, delivering a stern warning to against meddling in consensual adult relationships. A of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena , in its order, criticized the force for a "disturbing trend" of registering cases and pursuing couples instead of real crimes, swelling court dockets unnecessarily.
From Missing Daughter to Matrimonial Bliss
The petition stemmed from an FIR dated , lodged by the woman's father at , Saharanpur, under —pertaining to abduction. The father claimed his daughter, aged 18 years and 11 months, had vanished with the man and his brother in a car. But court scrutiny revealed a different story: the woman, confirmed major via her high school certificate (born ), had willingly married the man on the same day at Shiv Mandir, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Documents included a government-issued marriage certificate, photos of the Hindu rites ceremony, and a joint affidavit affirming their peaceful life as husband and wife.
The couple approached the High Court via Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1553 of 2026, seeking to annul the FIR amid police pursuit. The woman's father (respondent no. 4) was deemed served but absent; the State filed a counter-affidavit.
Father's Alarm vs. Couple's United Front
The father's narrative painted a potential abduction, justifying a FIR to locate his daughter. No direct arguments from his side were detailed post-service, but the complaint implied coercion given her sudden disappearance.
Petitioners countered emphatically: the woman, present in court, affirmed her voluntary marriage and happiness. Evidence—birth records, marriage proof, photos, and affidavit—established her majority and consent. They argued the FIR grossly intruded on their liberty, with police actions amounting to harassment rather than investigation.
Dismantling the Case: No Crime in Choice
The Bench pierced the FIR's veil, noting it suited a mere missing person report, not a crime:
"Possibly the only report that the informant could have made in a case like this was a missing report to trace out the whereabouts by saying that his daughter had gone missing. There was no occasion to register a crime."
No precedents were cited, but the court rooted its reasoning in constitutional ethos—'s right to life and liberty, extending to marital choice for majors. It distinguished minors' cases, stressing: adults cannot be dictated by parents or police. Media reports echoed this, highlighting how such FIRs burden courts, as covered by outlets like Indian Express .
Court's Fiery Observations
The judgment brimmed with quotable critiques:
"No one has business to tell a major, where he or she will stay, or with whom he or she will live, marry or spend his or her life."
"We find a disturbing trend these days where the Police, as in the present case, are registering FIRs and chasing couples virtually investigating marriages, instead of investigating crimes with which their hands are full. They are wasting their time in business which is not their's."
"The Constitution does not permit an adult, whatever be the relationship, to dominate or rule over the will of another adult, who is a major under the law."
"The Police are doing great dis-service by registering FIRs such as these, and more than that, chasing the young couple, sometime with ulterior motive to forcibly separate them and send back the bride to the parents or her family. These actions are absolutely illegal and some of them are offences."
These remarks, amplified in news coverage, signal a broader judicial frustration with "honour"-driven interferences.
Liberty Upheld: FIR Axed, Police on Notice
The petition succeeded outright:
"The
dated 10.12.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0730 of 2025 under Section 87 of B.N.S., 2023, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur is hereby quashed."
Orders included: red-ink General Diary entry at the station; barring respondents, including the father, from disturbing the couple's home or life; communications to SSP Saharanpur, DGP UP, and Additional Chief Secretary (Home). They must enact "remedial actions" against such trends, or face court intervention.
This ruling reinforces majors' autonomy, curbing FIR misuse in love matters. It may deter similar police overreach, freeing resources for genuine crimes and easing judicial loads— a message resonating nationwide.
