Allahabad High Court: Police Cannot Investigate Marriages, Must Focus on Crimes

It is definitely a most commendable step in the right direction that none other than the Allahabad High Court itself in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Saubhangini Shukla and another v State of UP and Others in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 9542 of 2026 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026:AHC:154672-DB that was pronounced very recently on July 27, 2026 has minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably that the police has no business investigating such marriages and must focus on crimes. It also merits noting that the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JJ Munir and Hon’ble Mr Justice Tarun Saxena of Allahabad High Court was most unequivocal in mandating that, “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 to investigate crimes. This is no crime, where any investigation is required.” Absolutely right!

Case Overview

Court's Key Observation

• Police have no business investigating marriages between consenting adults.
• The role of the police is to investigate crimes.
• Marriage between two consenting major individuals does not warrant police investigation.
• The Court strongly reminded the police to remain within the limits of their lawful duties.

Opening Observations of the Court

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice JJ Munir for a Division Bench comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Tarun Saxena sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This writ petition is directed against the impugned First Information Report dated 19.04.2026, giving rise to Crime No. 108 of 2026, under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi.”

Facts of the Case

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “The case of the first and second petitioner is that they are major according to the laws of the country, and were into a relationship for the past one year. They have, therefore, decided to marry and stay together for life. Their marriage has been solemnized on 18.02.2026 at the Arya Vedic Sabha, Prayagraj. Both the petitioners are not only of the age of majority but also well educated. They have passed their M.Sc., BTC. According to the high school certificate, the date of birth of the first petitioner is 06.01.1998, whereas that of the second petitioner is 20.02.1999. Thus, petitioner no. 1 is aged 28 years, whereas petitioner no. 2 is 26 years. A copy of the petitioners’ marriage certificate dated 18.02.2026 from the Arya Vedic Sabha, Prayagraj, and some photographs of the ceremony are on record of the writ petition. It is also asserted that this is the first marriage for both the petitioners, and they had not married previously. Petitioner no. 2 is a newly appointed assistant teacher in a primary school in Madhya Pradesh and can, by himself, support the first petitioner.”

Important Facts at a Glance

Facts of the Case

While elaborating further on the facts of the case and continuing in the same vein, the Division Bench then lays bare in para 3 disclosing and stating that, “It is averred in paragraph no. 15 that after her marriage to petitioner no. 1, the second petitioner brought the fact to the notice of her father and brother on 17.04.2026, which annoyed them much. They beat her up and threatened to kill her as well as her husband. She left her parents’ home and gave an application to the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi as well as the Station House Officer, Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi, which she sent through registered post on 17.04.2026 to protect the petitioners’ life and liberty from the fourth respondent, who is her father. A copy of the said application is also on record as well as postal receipts of dispatch.”

Allegations of Threats and Police Protection

As we see, the Division Bench then further reveals in para 4 mentioning that, “It is the further case of the petitioners that both of them are living happily together as husband and wife, but the fourth respondent, who is the first petitioner’s father, and the other family members, have not taken kindly to the marriage and, in collusion with the Police, are out to arrest them illegally, separate them forcibly and hand over the first petitioner, an adult and a major, back to her father, against her will and wish. Both the petitioners have expressed apprehension about their life and liberty at the hands of the fourth respondent. It is then said that the petitioners, being of the age of majority, are entitled to marry and stay together as man and wife, and any infraction thereof at the instance of her father, in connivance with the police, is an abuse of process of law.”

Interim Order and Protection Granted by the Court

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 5 that, “On 29.04.2026, when this petition came up for admission, both the petitioners appeared and we recorded the stand of the first petitioner viva voce in Court, to which we shall presently allude. On the basis of the first petitioner’s stand, we admitted this petition to hearing, and it being a case where two major citizens of the country had married according to Hindu rites, we prima facie found that there was nothing in the FIR to investigate. Therefore, by an interim order of the same date, we stayed the investigation by the police and also the petitioners’ arrest. By a separate injunction temporary, we restrained the fourth respondent and members his family, friends and associates from causing any injury in life and limb to the first and the second petitioner and obliged the Superintendent of Police to ensure that no harm comes to the petitioners at the hands of the fourth respondent or anyone acting on his behest.”

Response of the Respondents

As it turned out, the Division Bench then enunciates in para. 6 that "Mr. Vijay Chandra Srivastava and Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocates who appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4, have not filed any counter affidavit. A compliance affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi, which we have treated as a counter affidavit. The petitioner has waived his right to file a rejoinder.”

Key Factual Developments

Highlights of the Court's Observations

• The second petitioner alleged assault and threats from her family after her marriage.
• A written request for protection was sent to the police authorities through registered post.
• The petitioners claimed they were lawfully married adults entitled to live together.
• The High Court recorded the first petitioner’s statement before granting interim relief.
• The Court stayed the police investigation and the petitioners' arrest.
• Directions were issued to ensure the petitioners' safety.
• The Superintendent of Police's compliance affidavit was treated as the counter affidavit.

Police Investigation and High Court Observations

Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para 8 that, “In the compliance affidavit, which is taken to be a return in the matter on behalf of the State, the Superintendent of Police has said that the FIR giving rise to the crime disclosed a cognisable offence, and accordingly, it was registered. In Case Diary No. 1 on 20.04.2026, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the scribe of the FIR and the informant and conducted a site inspection. The informant reiterated his allegations in the FIR that his daughter has been taken away by blandishment by the second petitioner, and their whereabouts were not known. The Superintendent of Police has said that local inquiries and deployment of informants were done, but no fruitful information was forthcoming. In Case Diary No. 2 dated 22.04.2026, further efforts were made to locate petitioner no. 1 and the nominated accused, that is to say, petitioner no. 2. However, no leads emerged, and informants were again deployed for tracing out both the petitioners.”

Key Points from Para 8

• FIR disclosed a cognisable offence and was registered.
• Statements of the informant and the FIR scribe were recorded.
• The investigating officer conducted a site inspection.
• Multiple efforts were made to trace both petitioners.
• Informants were deployed, but no useful information was received.

Marriage Intimation Received by Police

Do further note, the Division Bench then notes in para 9 that, “On 24.04.2026, the Investigating Officer received, through registered post, an intimation sent by petitioner no. 1, saying that she had solemnised marriage with petitioner no. 2 at the Arya Vedic Sabha, Prayagraj. This information was entered in Case Diary No. 3 and placed on record.”

Key Points from Para 9

• The investigating officer received a registered communication.
• Petitioner No. 1 informed the police about her marriage.
• The marriage was stated to have been solemnized at Arya Vedic Sabha, Prayagraj.
• The information was entered in Case Diary No. 3.

Investigation Kept in Abeyance Following High Court Order

Further, the Division Bench then points out in para 10 that, “It is next averred in paragraph no. 10 that upon receipt of this Court’s order on 29.04.2026, all further investigations and consequential proceedings have been kept in abeyance in strict compliance. The order of this Court, restraining respondent no. 4 from harming the petitioners too, has been served, and a copy of the memo has been annexed to the return.”

Key Points from Para 10

• Investigation was suspended after receipt of the High Court's order.
• Consequential proceedings were also kept in abeyance.
• The Court's protection order was served upon respondent no. 4.
• A copy of the compliance memo was annexed with the return.

Police Request for Recording Statements Under BNSS

Furthermore, the Division Bench observes in para 11 that, “The next averment in paragraph no. 12 says that statements of both petitioners have to be recorded under Section 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Since both petitioners are adults and fully capable of making their own decisions, the police have no occasion or authority to interfere in their personal lives. It is, therefore, asserted that the petitioners may kindly be directed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation by presenting themselves for recording their statements under the aforesaid provisions. Upon cooperation being extended by the petitioners and their statements recorded, the investigation shall be concluded expeditiously, in accordance with law.”

Key Points from Para 11

• The police sought statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
• The affidavit acknowledged that both petitioners were adults.
• The police requested the court to direct the petitioners to cooperate.
• The investigation was proposed to be concluded after recording the statements.

High Court Finds No Case Worth Investigation

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 13 that, “Upon a reading of the stand of the first petitioner, about whose identity, there was, no doubt, put forth by learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, Mr. Vijay Chandra Srivastava, who was present on 29.04.2026, we are of opinion that there is absolutely no case worth investigation, and the Police utterly wasting their time in going about the exercise. Two adults have married each other according to Hindu rites, and both are accomplished persons with good education. There is absolutely no angle of enticement or blandishment involved in this case, considering the age and the education of parties. The first petitioner is aged 27/28 years.”

Key Points from Para 13

• The Division Bench found no case worth investigating.
• The Court observed that both petitioners were consenting adults.
• Both parties were educated and capable of making independent decisions.
• The Court found no evidence of enticement or blandishment.
• The police investigation was described as a waste of time.

High Court Criticises Superintendent of Police

Most forthrightly, the Division Bench observes in para. 14 that "We are utterly disillusioned by the stand taken by the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi, that the investigation has to be completed. This is a case where the matter ought to have been concluded, in view of the statement recorded before us. The insistence of the Superintendent of Police in getting the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 180 BNSS before the Investigating Officer and Section 183 BNSS before the Judicial Magistrate is almost contumacious. After the prosecutrix/petitioner no. 1 has had her statement recorded by a Division Bench of the High Court, no Court in the State or police authority have business, in a matter like the present one, to record any further statement for the first petitioner and form a different opinion on its basis. If the police wanted to close the investigation, they could have done it on the basis of the prosecutrix’s statement recorded in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

Key Observations from Para 14

• The Division Bench strongly criticized the Superintendent of Police.
• The Court held that the investigation should have already been concluded.
• The insistence on recording fresh statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS was described as almost contumacious.
• The High Court held that its recorded statement was sufficient.
• The police could have closed the investigation on the basis of the statement recorded under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Summary of the Division Bench Findings

Court Finds Police Interference Unconstitutional

Most significantly, most commendably and so also most remarkably, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 15 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “We are minded to think that the petitioners are right that the Police are indeed siding with the fourth respondent and wish to carry on the investigation by recording statements of parties, where they have already disclosed their mind before this Court viva voce and their stand has been reduced to writing in our orders. 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 a gross violation of their fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The liberty that a person who is a major enjoys includes the liberty to marry a person of his/her choice. 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 to investigate crimes. This is no crime, where any investigation is required.”

Key Observations from Paragraph 15

Division Bench Imposes Costs on State and Fourth Respondent

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 16 that, “Considering the action of the Police in insisting that they would still investigate the marriage, despite our detailed order on 29.04.2026, and the act of the fourth respondent in lodging an FIR regarding a marriage between his daughter who is a major and a person of her choice, we are of opinion that some costs deserve to be imposed on both parties, that is to say, the State as well as the fourth respondent.”

Highlights of Paragraph 16

• The police continued the investigation despite the court's earlier order dated 29.04.2026.
• The fourth respondent lodged an FIR against the marriage of his major daughter.
• The Court held that both the State and the fourth respondent deserved to bear costs.

FIR Quashed and Costs Awarded

As a corollary, the Division Bench then directs and holds in para. 17 that, “In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned FIR dated 19.04.2026, giving rise to Case Crime No. 108 of 2026, under Section 87 BNS, Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi, is hereby quashed. A cost of 1000₹ shall be payable, jointly and severally, by the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi and the Station House Officer, Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi, to petitioner no. 1, and a sum of Rs 5000 by the fourth respondent, also to the first petitioner. The said costs shall be deposited with the learned Registrar General of this Court within a week of the receipt of this order. In the event, costs are not deposited, the learned Registrar General shall issue a recovery certificate against the defaulting respondent(s), authorising the Collector, Bhadohi to recover the sum of money as arrears of land revenue; and once the costs are received in account by the learned Registrar General, the same shall be paid to the first petitioner. In case the costs are deposited by any of the respondents, as directed, of their own, it would be transmitted in account by the learned Registrar General to the first petitioner immediately.”

Directions Issued in Paragraph 17

General Diary Entry Directed

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then notes in para 18 that, “An entry shall be caused to be made in the General Diary of Police Station, Suriyavan, District Bhadohi by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in red ink that proceedings of Case Crime No. 108 of 2026, under Section 87 BNS, Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi stand quashed under orders of this Court.”

Importance of Paragraph 18

• The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur, was directed to ensure an entry is made in the General Diary.
• The entry must clearly record that the proceedings in Case Crime No. 108 of 2026 stand quashed.
• The Court specifically directed that the entry be made in red ink.

Final Compliance Directions

Finally, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 19 that, “The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur and through her, to the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi and the Station House Officer, Police Station Surivayan, District Bhadohi.”

Compliance Summary

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col. (Retd.) BPS Sirohi, A-82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Important Links

Important Links:

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR : WhatsApp 9650499965