The Allahabad High Court on Monday quashed an FIR lodged against a man accused of abducting a major woman who had voluntarily married him, observing that the police had no business being "nosy parkers" and investigating the marriage between two consenting adults.

"We have repeatedly reminded the Police that it is no business of theirs to investigate marriages. They ought investigate crimes. This is no crime, where any investigation is required", a Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena observed.

Allowing a writ petition filed by the couple, the Court described the investigation into the marriage as not only an abuse of the process of criminal law, but also a gross violation of their fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Bench also imposed costs on the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi, the Station House Officer of Suriyavan Police Station, and the woman's father, who had lodged the FIR.

Case in brief

An FIR was lodged by the father of the petitioner no. 1/woman under Section 87 BNS (Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.) alleging that she had been taken away by the petitioner no. 2.

The couple then approached the High Court, stating that both were majors who had solemnized their marriage on February 18, 2026, and were now living together of their own free will.

They alleged that despite the consensual marriage, the woman's family, in collusion with the police, was attempting to separate them and hand her back to her father against her wishes.

High Court's observations

When the matter first came up, the Court recorded the woman's statement in open court. She confirmed that she had married the petitioner and now wished to stay with him

Prima facie finding that there was "nothing in the FIR to investigate", the Bench stayed the investigation and the petitioners' arrest while directing the police to ensure their safety.

Later, in its compliance affidavit, the State submitted that the statements of both petitioners had yet to be recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS before the investigation could be concluded.

Rejecting this stance of the state, the Court observed that there was "absolutely no case worth investigation" and that the police were "utterly wasting their time" because the case involved two educated adults who had voluntarily married each other.

"Two adults have married each other according to Hindu rights 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 (woman) is aged 27/28 years", the bench observed.

The Court further expressed its disapproval of the Superintendent of Police's insistence on recording the woman's statement under the BNSS despite her statement already having been recorded by the High Court.

Calling SP's stance "almost contumacious", the Bench observed that after the prosecutrix had made her statement before a Division Bench, "no Court in the State or police authority has business, in a matter like the present one, to record any further statement" or form a different opinion on its basis.

It added that if the police wished to close the investigation, they could have done so on the strength of the woman's statement recorded by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court also said that it was "minded to think" that the petitioners were right in alleging that the police were siding with the woman's father and seeking to continue the investigation despite the couple having already disclosed their stand before the Court.

Holding that the investigation itself was an "abuse of process of law", the Bench observed thus:

"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 guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The liberty, that a person, who is a major, 9 enjoys, includes the liberty to marry a person of his/her choice. The police have no business in the matter to be nosy parkers".

In view of these observations, the High Court quashed the FIR. It directed the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi and the Station House Officer, Suriyavan Police Station, to jointly pay ₹1,000 as costs to the woman petitioner, while directing her father to pay ₹5,000.

The Court ordered that the amounts be deposited within one week, failing which they would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It also directed that an entry be made in the General Diary of the concerned police station recording that the criminal proceedings stood quashed.

Case Title - Saubhangini Shukla And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 482

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 482

Click Here To Read/Download Order