Back
Quashes FIR Against Couple Marrying According To Their Own Free Will
In a significant ruling protecting the of adult citizens, a Division Bench of the has quashed a (FIR) registered against a married couple. The judgment, delivered by Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, reaffirms that the police have no legal authority to intervene in the personal choices of consenting adults.
A Marriage Disputed
The case involved the petitioners, both highly educated professionals, who solemnized their marriage on , at the in Prayagraj. Despite the couple being well within the legal age of majority—the bride aged 28 and her husband aged 26—the bride's family lodged an FIR alleging criminal intimidation and enticement. Facing threats from her family and fearing illegal detention, the couple approached the High Court to secure their personal safety and liberty.
Conflicting Legal Positions
The state authorities, led by the , attempted to defend the ongoing investigation by claiming that the FIR disclosed a . The prosecution argued that, despite the marriage certificate, the police were duty-bound to record formal statements under the .
Conversely, the petitioners asserted that their union was a result of mutual consent. They argued that the police and the bride's father were abusing the process of law to separate a legally married couple, thereby infringing upon their constitutional rights.
The Judicial Rebuking
During the proceedings, the High Court interacted directly with the bride, who confirmed both her education and her desire to continue her life with her husband. The Bench expressed strong disapproval regarding the police’s insistence on pursuing an investigation into a marriage between two consenting adults. Rejecting the notion that such unions require state oversight, the Court emphasized that law enforcement agencies must focus on investigating crimes rather than policing the personal lives of citizens.
Key Observations
The judgment delivered sharp criticism toward the authorities, characterizing their interference as an abuse of administrative power:
-
"The police have no business in the matter to be nosy parkers. We have repeatedly reminded the Police that it is no business of theirs to investigate marriages. They ought investigate crimes."
-
"The carrying on of this investigation into an adult’s free choice of her partner and marriage between two major citizens of the country is not only an abuse of process of criminal law, but also gross violation of their fundamental right to liberty."
-
"The insistence of the Superintendent of Police in getting the statement of the prosecutrix recorded... is almost contumacious."
Final Verdict and Implications
Allowing the , the High Court quashed the FIR dated . Recognizing the harassment faced by the couple, the Court imposed costs of ₹1,000 on the police officials involved and ₹5,000 on the respondent father, to be paid to the first petitioner.
This ruling serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies across the state of Uttar Pradesh that under is paramount. By invalidating the FIR and penalizing the arbitrary exercise of police authority, the court has set a clear precedent ensuring that adult citizens remain free to pursue their marital choices without state interference, provided the union is entered into with legal consent.
