Back
2026 Supreme(All) 1256
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, TARUN SAXENA, JJ.
Tayyab - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 8465 of 2026 (Along with Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 2789 of 2026, 3132 of 2026 and 6019 of 2026)
Decided On : 01-07-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Mohd. Shakib, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Shyam Kumar Yadav, Advocate Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate
An FIR alleging serious offences like rape and child sexual abuse cannot be quashed at the threshold based on claims of religious rituals, as personal law does not override the penal code and protection statutes regarding sexual violence and the protection of minors.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 61(2)(a), 64, 70(2), 85, 115(2), 351(2) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(l), 6, 17, 18 - Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 - Sections 3 and 4 - FIR quashing - Prima facie case of rape and gang rape involving minor under the garb of religious ritual - Allegations of coercion and fraudulent marriage practices - Court cannot interfere in investigation at threshold where serious cognizable offences involving sexual violence and protection of children are established.
Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix alleges being subjected to forcible marriage as a minor, repeated sexual exploitation under the guise of ‘nikah halala’, and subsequent victimization through fraudulent marriages and sexual assault by multiple accused persons including the ex-husband and his associates. The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, citing the performance of traditional religious rituals and the absence of specific criminal roles.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that personal laws cannot be used as a shield to perpetrate acts of sexual violence or engage in carnal relations with minors, which is strictly prohibited. Given the serious nature of allegations involving gang rape and child sexual offences, the Court found it inappropriate to exercise its powers to quash the FIR at the investigation stage.
Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the contention that the alleged acts were religious rituals (halala) and whether the petitioners are entitled to relief despite prima facie evidence of serious sexual crimes.
Ratio Decidendi: Sexual relations with a minor, irrespective of religious sanctions or personal law, constitute statutory rape/offences under the POCSO Act. Appellate courts should refrain from quashing an FIR where serious cognizable offences are prima facie established, as investigation must be allowed to proceed.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(DELIVERED BY : J.J. MUNIR, J.)
This judgment will decide the present petition and connected Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 6019 of 2026, 2789 of 2026, and 3132 of 2026. All these writ petitions lay challenge to the same First Information Report[‘FIR’ for short]and have, therefore, been heard together.
2. This writ petition, along with the connected writ petitions, has been instituted seeking to quash the FIR dated 09.12.2025, giving rise to Crime No. 348 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 64, 351(2), 61(2)(a), 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023[‘BNS’ for short], Section 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 and Sections 5(l)/6 and 17/18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012[‘POCSO Act’ for short], Police Station Saidnagli, District Amroha.
3. The first informant, according to the FIR, was forced to marry one Azhar Nawaz, a resident of Village Dhakka, Tahsil Hasanpur, Mohalla Mahal, District Amroha. The informant[hereinafter referred to as ‘prosecutrix’, unless the context requires a specific reference], as she says, was coerced to enter into this marriage under threat and by force on 25.04.2015, when her nikah was performed with Azhar Nawaz. She says that she was aged barely 15 years at the time. After the marriage of parties, Azhar would beat up the prosecutrix. In the month of January, 2016, Azhar ended the marital bond with the pronouncement of a Triple Talaq. After the passage of a few months, Azhar Nawaz came back to the prosecutrix with a proposal to marry her a second time. Next, in the month of November, 2016, Azhar got the informant to perform a halala nikah with co-accused Maulana Qayyum. The nikah was performed by Murtza alias Kari Murtza son of Sageer Ahamad[the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2789 of 2026] at Town Siyana, District Bulandshahr. Azhar had come along with a cousin of his, one degree removed, Tayyab son of Amjad Hussain[the petitioner in the present writ petition], and a cousin, Asim son of Mohammad Ghufran[the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6019 of 2026]. After the halala nikah, a second nikah of the prosecutrix with Azhar Nawaz was performed in the month of April, 2017. The parties cohabited, and of the wedlock of parties, a daughter was born on 01.04.2018 at Moradabad.
4. After birth of the daughter, Azhar's behaviour towards the prosecutrix changed for the worse and went downhill. He resumed beating her. On 24.01.2021, he divorced the informant a second time, and during the period of her iddat and within eleven days of the divorce, he married another woman, Nayab Akhtar. The prosecutrix says that she was aware of the illicit relationship between Azhar Nawaz and the other woman, while the two were married. After the second divorce with the prosecutrix and his own second marriage, Azhar would find pretexts to resume his relationship with the prosecutrix, sometimes citing their daughter as the cause and at others, the matter of paying maintenance etc. Sometimes, he would say that his other wife (Nayab Akhtar) was barren. It was also said by the informant that Azhar told her that he had divorced his second wife and that he wishes to stay with her and their daughter, resuming their family. His brothers and co-accused Shahnawaz Chaudhary and Hakim Nishat alias Nishat[the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3132 of 2026] would convince the prosecutrix about the wisdom of Azhar's proposal. The prosecutrix, bearing in mind her daughter's future, besides being a broken woman on account of the trauma of two divorces and financial stringency, agreed to a third marriage between the parties,which she has mentioned in the FIR as a second marriage. As soon as the prosecutrix agreed to this proposal, Azhar's brothers told her that since her marriage with Azhar had already ended twice, it would require a halala twice over. Under the pretext of doing a halala, the prosecutrix says that co-accused Shah
