Smt Muskan Bashar and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Petitioners-Smt Muskan Bashar And Another have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the first informant report dated 23.04.2026 lodged by first informant/respondent-4, Khurshid and registered as Case Crime No. 0211 of 2026 under Sections 87 BNS, Police Station-Rasoolpur, DistrictFirozabad (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioners in support of present writ petiton submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as have now emerged on record, the criminal prosecution of petitioners pursuant to the present impugned F.I.R. cannot be sustained in law and fact. As such, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶14

Elaborating his aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner-1, Smt. Muskan Bashar is not nominated as named accused in the impugned F.I.R. However, the prosecutrix i.e. petitioner-1 has joined petitioner-2 in the present writ petition.

¶15

It is then contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner-1, Smt. Muskan Bashar ( the prosecutrix) is major as is evident from her date of birth recorded in her High School Certificate cum

¶16

CRLP No. 10746 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

marksheet, photocopy of which is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is then contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that similarly petitioner-2, Kaif Farooqui @ Mohammad Kaif is also major as is evident from his date of birth recorded in his Adhar Card and also the progress report of Class-VIII. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that since petitioners are major therefore they have a right to chose their own way of life. In support of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and another (2010) 5 SCC 600.

¶19

It is next contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the prosecutrix i.e. petitioner-1, who is major fell in love with petitioner-2. On account of love affair as well as fascination for each other, the prosecutrix i.e. petitioner-1 has solemnized marriage with petitioner-2 on 22.04.2026 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Custom on 07.04.2026. A categorical averment to that effect has been made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition. Photocopy of Nikahnama has also been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, bonafide of the petitioners is further explicit from the fact that petitioners have applied for registration of their marriage under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules 2017. Photocopy of the application for registration of marriage submitted On-Line is on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. On account of above, petitioners are now living together as husband and wife. However, the prosecutrix i.e. petitioner-1 has also filed her affidavit alongwith petitioner-2 in support of present writ petition. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as have now crystalized on record, the criminal prosecution of petitioners pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. cannot be sustained.

¶20

To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the Judgements of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. The State By the Inspector of Police , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056, Mafat Lal and another Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 433 and Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2024 (Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 30.01.2025, wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused/ petitioner therein on the ground that

¶21

CRLP No. 10746 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

accused/petitioner has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and secondly the Court cannot turn a blind eye to the said fact.

¶24

On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. cannot be sustained and therefore the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶25

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1 to 3 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. Learned A.G.A. submits that since upon perusal of impugned F.I.R. commission of a cognizable offence is clearly disclosed, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioners in support of present writ petition as noted herein above, with reference to the record at this stage.

¶26

Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1 to 3 and upon perusal of record, we find that matters requires consideration.

¶27

Notice on behalf of State/respondents 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

¶28

Issue notice to first informant/respondent-4.

¶29

Steps for service upon first informant/respondent-4 shall be taken by the learned counsel for petitioners within the time period provided under the Rules of Court.

¶30

All the respondents may file their respective counter affidavits within six weeks.

¶31

Petitioners will have two weeks thereafter to file their rejoinder affidavits.

¶32

List this writ petition for admission before appropriate Bench on 11.08.2026.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioners in support of present writ petition as noted herein above, as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that until further orders of this Court petitioners shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 0211 of 2026 under Sections 87 BNS, Police Station-Rasoolpur, District-Firozabad (Annexure-1 to the writ

¶34

CRLP No. 10746 of 2026

¶35

4

¶36

petition) arising out of the impugned F.I.R. 23.04.2026.

¶37

We are not unmindful of the judgement of Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948. Therefore, we further direct that the investigation of concerned case crime number may go on but the Investigating Officer shall not submit the police report in terms of Section 193 (3) BNSS before the jurisdictional Magistrate, till the pendency of present writ petition.

¶38

The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part hear to this Bench.

¶39

Assignment, if any, stands discharged.

¶40

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

¶41

May 12, 2026 YK

¶42

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Muskan Bashar and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt Muskan Bashar and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhinav Kesarwani vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sajan vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Ram Lakhan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sangita Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Alia and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others