Allowed¶31

Smt. Deepa and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2026CRLP/7041/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR under Section 137(2) BNS against interdicted-marriage couple; right of major adults to marry and cohabit of choice under Article 21; FIR by dissenting grandmother held abuse of process; writ petition allowed; red-ink G.D. entry directed; Allahabad High Court, 06.05.2026, Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7041 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned FIR dated 19.3.2026 (Case Crime No. 134 of 2026, Section 137(2) BNS, P.S. Kotwali City, District Etah) quashed; CJM Etah directed to make red-ink entry in the G.D.; order to be communicated to CJM Etah, Superintendent of Police Etah and S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali City by Registrar (Compliance). ¶31

Smt. Deepa and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition directed against the F.I.R. dated 19.3.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 134 of 2026 under Section 137(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali City, District Etah, ought to be allowed and the FIR quashed. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The impugned F.I.R., lodged by the first petitioner's grandmother, is apparently an abuse of the process of the Court; any doubt stood removed by the prosecutrix's statement recorded in Court.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

An adult who is a major under the law is entitled to marry a person of his/her choice and stay with a person of his/her choice; this is part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Key takeaways

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed; the impugned FIR dated 19.3.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 134 of 2026 under Section 137(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali City, District Etah, stands quashed.ratio¶31
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, is directed to cause an entry in red ink in the G.D. at Police Station Kotwali City, District Etah, recording that Case Crime No. 134 of 2026 under Section 137(2) BNS stands quashed under the orders of the Court; the order is to be communicated to the CJM, SP Etah and the SHO through the Registrar (Compliance).ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena, JJ.), allowing a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition filed by a young married couple (both majors): Held that an adult who is a major is entitled to marry a person of his/her choice and stay with a person of his/her choice, being part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The F.I.R. dated 19.3.2026 (Case Crime No. 134 of 2026, Section 137(2) BNS, P.S. Kotwali City, District Etah), lodged by the first petitioner's grandmother who dissented from the marriage, was held to be an apparent abuse of the process of the Court, and was quashed. The prosecutrix, found to be a major, stated viva voce in Court that she had married out of her free will and wished to stay with her husband. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, was directed to make a red-ink entry in the G.D. recording the quashing, and the order was to be communicated to the CJM, SP Etah and the SHO. Decided May 6, 2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7041 of 2026

¶3

Smt. Deepa And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Umendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 47

¶10

HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

¶11

In compliance with the order dated 17th April, 2026, notice issued to respondent No. 4 has been reported by the office vide report dated 6.5.2026 in term that neither the postal was returned unserved nor the acknowledgment has been received. It is reported that no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4.

¶12

Service upon respondent No. 4 is, therefore, deemed sufficient.

¶13

This writ petition is directed against the impugned F.I.R. dated 19.3.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 134 of 2026 under Section 137(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali City, District Etah.

¶14

In compliance with our order dated 17th April, 2026, the first petitioner/prosecutrix is present. She has been identified by Mr. Umendra Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of papers produced by her in Chambers.

¶15

Looking to the nature of the controversy involved, we proceed to ascertain the prosecutrix's stand, whom we have already found to be a major by our order dated 17th April, 2026. The stand of the prosecutrix is recorded viva voce as follows:

¶16

" आपका नाम क्या है? दीपा।

¶17

आपके िपताजी का नाम क्या है?

¶18

CRLP No. 7041 of 2026

¶19

¶20

मुकेश। आपकी आयु िकतनी है? 19 वषर्। आपने शादी िकससे की है? रामू िसह से की है। आप इस समय कहाँ से आयी हैं? हरदोई से। आप िकसके साथ रह रही हैं? ससुराल में। आप कहाँ जाना चाहती हैं? अपने पित के साथ।

¶21

सुशीला देवी कौन हैं? मेरी दादी हैं।

¶22

क्या आप दादी के पास जाना चाहती हैं?

¶23

नहीं, मैं वहाँ नहीं जाना चाहती हूँ।"

¶24

The case of the parties is that the first and second petitioners, both of whom are majors, have married each other according to their free will and wish. They have married according to Hindu rites on 18th March, 2026 at the Arya Samaj, Yasinpur, Hardoi. The certificate of marriage is appended at page 20 of the paper book.

¶25

The stand of the parties is clear that they have married according to their free will and wish and are living together as man and wife. They say that it is their choice whom they should marry and where they should stay. The respondent, who is the first petitioner's grandmother, has dissented from the parties' marriage, and the FIR was thereafter lodged, which, according to the petitioners, has been done in connivance with the police in order to forcibly separate the couple and take the first petitioner back home.

¶26

The law is fairly well settled that an adult who is a major under the law is entitled to marry a person of his/her choice and stay with a person of his/her choice. This is a part of the fundamental right to life

¶27

CRLP No. 7041 of 2026

¶28

¶29

and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

The impugned F.I.R., lodged by the first petitioner's grandmother, is apparently an abuse of the process of the Court. If we had the slightest doubt in our mind, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded in Court today has removed it.

¶31

In the circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed . The impugned FIR dated 19.3.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 134 of 2026 under Section 137(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali City, District Etah, is hereby quashed .

¶32

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, is directed to cause an entry in red ink to be made in the G.D. at Police Station Kotwali City, District Etah, to the effect that Case Crime No. 134 of 2026 under Section 137(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali City, District Etah, stands quashed under the orders of this Court.

¶33

Let this order be communicated to the CJM, Etah, the Superintendent of Police, Etah and the S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali City, Etah by the Registrar (Compliance) through the CJM, Etah.

¶34

May 6, 2026 Sumaira

¶35

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

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Deepa and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Deepa and Another v. State of U.P. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Laxmi Devi and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Aman Kumar Singh Urf Mikki vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Hema and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sadanan Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Murali vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashwani @ Rahul Pandey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others