Dauli and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

1. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector Shiv Pratap Singh, who is present in Court. In this affidavit, he has spoken about the case, but said nothing about the incorrect affidavit which he filed earlier, which we prima facie found to be both the result of a perjury and an act constituting criminal contempt for saying falsehood on oath before this Court.

¶12

2. Shiv Pratap Singh, who is before the Court, was asked by us to read out paragraph no. 18 of the counter affidavit dated 24.03.2026, where apparently the perjured statement finds place. When we offered him the affidavit to read, he gave us a helpless look and informed us that his is educated upto Class-XII. He has been promoted from the post of a Constable and has very scanty knowledge of the English language. We take it that he has signed this affidavit because of his handicap in the understanding of English language and there was a communication gap between him and the draftsman of the affidavit. We, therefore, discharge the notice issued to him and exempted his appearance.

¶13

3. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶14

4. We are also informed that the Police, after investigation, have filed a final report in Court, which has not been accepted.

¶15

CRLP No. 28428 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

5. This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. dated 28.10.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0210 of 2025, under Sections 87 B.N.S.- 2023, P.S. Bah, District Agra.

¶18

6. Notice was issued to respondent no. 3 by RPAD, and according to the office report dated 31.01.2026, neither acknowledgment nor undelivered cover has been received back. In this view of the matter, service upon the said respondent is deemed sufficient. No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 3.

¶19

7. The case of the petitioners is that both the petitioners are major. The date of birth of the first petitioner, according to her Highschool Certificate is 11.01.2006. Thus, she is major. In the supplementary affidavit filed today, a certificate of the parties' marriage that took place on 16.01.2026 according to Hindu Rites at Arya Samaj, Prayagraj is annexed. The case of the petitioners is that though the petitioners have fallen in love and married each other, the third respondent, who is the first petitioner's father, has disapproved the parties' marriage, and in connivance with the local Police, lodged the impugned FIR on patently bogus and incredible allegations. He has said there that the second petitioner has taken away his daughter by blandishment. The petition is supported by a joint affidavit of both parties.

¶20

8. Upon considering the stand taken by the petitioners and the State, we think, we ought ascertain the stand of the first petitioner in the matter, which we proceed to record viva voce:

¶21

"Q. आपका नाम? Ans. डॉली। Q. आपके िपताजी का क्या नाम है? Ans. ्शी मातादीन। Q. आपकी आयु िकतनी है ? Ans. 11.01.2006, लगभग १९ वषर्। Q. आप कहाँ से आयी हैं ? Ans. राजस्थान से। Q. आप िकसके साथ आयी हैं ? Ans. अपने पित के साथ। Q. आप कहाँ जाना चाहती हैं।

¶22

CRLP No. 28428 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Ans.अपने पित के साथ जाना चाहती हूँ।

¶25

Q. आप अपने िपताजी के घर जाना चाहती हैं ?

¶26

Ans. नहीं।"

¶27

9. Considering the stand taken by the prosecutrix and the fact that she is a major, who has married the second petitioner of her freewill and wish, we are of opinion that the impugned FIR is a patent abuse of process of Court. Though we are informed that a final report has been put in by the Police, but final reports are of volatile and frail existence that can disappear on the slightest of objection from the first informant or at the instance of one or the other authorities of the Police, who may think of further investigating the matter.

¶28

10. This is a case, which neither brooks any objection nor the inquisitiveness of the Police to get the bottom of a crime. This is a case of a marriage, where there is no crime at all involved. We are satisfied about this matter to the hilt.

¶29

11. In the circumstances, this petition succeeds and is allowed . The impugned F.I.R. dated 28.10.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0210 of 2025, under Sections 87 B.N.S.- 2023, P.S. Bah, District Agra is hereby quashed .

¶30

12. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra shall cause an entry to be made in the GD of P.S. Bah, District Agra in red ink that Case Crime No. 0210 of 2025, under Sections 87 B.N.S.- 2023, P.S. Bah, District Agra has been quashed under order of this Court.

¶31

13. Let this order be communicated to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, and through him, to the Commissioner of Police, Agra and the Station House Officer, P.S. Bah, District Agra by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours.

¶32

(Tarun Saxena, J.) (J.J. Munir, J.)

¶33

May 5, 2026 Deepak

¶34

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

Dauli and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dauli and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahendra and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Bharti and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dauli and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nankram vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Kanchan Patel and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Roshan Yadav vs State of U.P. and 9 Others