High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Ambuj Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent as well as Sri Krishna Ram Yadav, advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 4 / complainant, which is taken on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following main relief(s): "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 21.07.2025 bearing F.I.R. No.0154/2025, U/S-137(2), 87, 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station- Sammanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No.2 & 3 not to arrest to the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report dated 21.07.2025 bearing F.I.R. No.0154/2025, U/S-137(2), 87, 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station- Sammanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the allegation has been levelled that the petitioner has eloped the daughter of the complainant namely Ms. Pratiksha, aged about 17 years.

4. The petitioner Sri Prashant Kumar @ Naveen Kumar and the daughter of the complainant Smt. Pratiksha are present in person before this Court. They have stated that they have got married to each other on their free will and consent on 21.07.2025 in Arya Samaj, Shivpuri, Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow. The marriage certificate to that effect has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. Annexure No. 3 are the coloured photographs of the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and Smt. Pratiksha. Annexure No. 4 is the High School Certificate of the petitioner wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been indicated as 21.09.2000. High School Certificate of Smt. Pratiksha has also been enclosed along with Annexure No. 4, wherein her date of birth has been indicated as 20.07.2007, therefore, as per their High School Certificate, both the petitioner and Smt. Pratiksha have attained marriageable age.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner and Smt. Pratiksha are living together as husband and wife but on account of the FIR lodged by the complainant against the petitioner, the police is harassing both of them.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 475, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-17 has observed as under:- "17. .... This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter- caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pleaded for protection to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees liberty to lead life with dignity. Therefore, he has requested that this writ petition may be disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner in any manner.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. They have submitted that since the investigation is going on, therefore, the petitioner may be directed to appear before the investigating officer.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, since the learned counsel for the parties as well as the parties are present before this Court and have stated their stand, therefore, we do not find any good ground to keep this petition pending any longer inasmuch no fruitful purpose would be served if the counter affidavit is called for.

10. In the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh (supra), it is observed that if two married persons after attaining the marriageable age get married and want to live together peacefully, no one can create any hindrance in their peaceful marital life.

11. Since the investigation is going on in this matter, therefore, the petitioner namely Prashant Kumar @ Naveen Kumar and Smt. Pratiksha shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station on 20.08.2025 at 11.00 a.m. to co- operate in the investigation and to get their statements recorded. It is directed that the Investigating Officer concerned shall immediately record their statements and the petitioner and the they shall not be held up unnecessarily at the police station. After getting their statements recorded, they may leave the police station immediately.

12. It is also made clear that if the petitioner does not co- operate in the investigation, the protection granted by this Court may be withdrawn on an appropriate application filed by the State or the complainant.

13. Before parting with, it is reiterated that in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh (supra), the petitioner shall not be unnecessarily harassed by the police pursuant to the impugned FIR.

14. The writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 (Manoj K.) (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) MANOJ KUMAR MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Ambuj Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent as well as Sri Krishna Ram Yadav, advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 4 / complainant, which is taken on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following main relief(s): "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 21.07.2025 bearing F.I.R. No.0154/2025, U/S-137(2), 87, 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station- Sammanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No.2 & 3 not to arrest to the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report dated 21.07.2025 bearing F.I.R. No.0154/2025, U/S-137(2), 87, 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station- Sammanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the allegation has been levelled that the petitioner has eloped the daughter of the complainant namely Ms. Pratiksha, aged about 17 years.

4. The petitioner Sri Prashant Kumar @ Naveen Kumar and the daughter of the complainant Smt. Pratiksha are present in person before this Court. They have stated that they have got married to each other on their free will and consent on 21.07.2025 in Arya Samaj, Shivpuri, Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow. The marriage certificate to that effect has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition. Annexure No. 3 are the coloured photographs of the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and Smt. Pratiksha. Annexure No. 4 is the High School Certificate of the petitioner wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been indicated as 21.09.2000. High School Certificate of Smt. Pratiksha has also been enclosed along with Annexure No. 4, wherein her date of birth has been indicated as 20.07.2007, therefore, as per their High School Certificate, both the petitioner and Smt. Pratiksha have attained marriageable age.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner and Smt. Pratiksha are living together as husband and wife but on account of the FIR lodged by the complainant against the petitioner, the police is harassing both of them.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 475, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-17 has observed as under:- "17. .... This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter- caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pleaded for protection to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees liberty to lead life with dignity. Therefore, he has requested that this writ petition may be disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner in any manner.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. They have submitted that since the investigation is going on, therefore, the petitioner may be directed to appear before the investigating officer.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, since the learned counsel for the parties as well as the parties are present before this Court and have stated their stand, therefore, we do not find any good ground to keep this petition pending any longer inasmuch no fruitful purpose would be served if the counter affidavit is called for.

10. In the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh (supra), it is observed that if two married persons after attaining the marriageable age get married and want to live together peacefully, no one can create any hindrance in their peaceful marital life.

11. Since the investigation is going on in this matter, therefore, the petitioner namely Prashant Kumar @ Naveen Kumar and Smt. Pratiksha shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station on 20.08.2025 at 11.00 a.m. to co- operate in the investigation and to get their statements recorded. It is directed that the Investigating Officer concerned shall immediately record their statements and the petitioner and the they shall not be held up unnecessarily at the police station. After getting their statements recorded, they may leave the police station immediately.

12. It is also made clear that if the petitioner does not co- operate in the investigation, the protection granted by this Court may be withdrawn on an appropriate application filed by the State or the complainant.

13. Before parting with, it is reiterated that in the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh (supra), the petitioner shall not be unnecessarily harassed by the police pursuant to the impugned FIR.

14. The writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 (Manoj K.) (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) MANOJ KUMAR MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench