Roshni and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Petitioners- Roshni and another have approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the impugned F.I.R. dated 19.3.2026, lodged by first informant/respondent-4 Shiv Kumar and registered as Case Crime No. 63 of 2026, under sections 87 BNS, Police Station- Binawar, District- Budaun.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner in challenge to the impugned F.I.R. submits that in view of the facts as have now crystalized on record, the criminal prosecution of petitioners pursuant to the 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

In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is admitted case of the first informant/respondent-4 Shiv Kumar taht the prosecutrix is major. Attention of the Court was then invited to paragraph 12 of the writ petition and on basis thereof it is urged that both the petitioners are major as per the date of birth of petitioner-1 mentioned in her Aadhar Card and the date of birth of petitioner-2 as mentioned in the Aadhar Card as we well as pass card of petitioner-2. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that since petitioners are major, they have a right to choose their life. Petitioners fell in love with each other.

¶15

CRLP No. 7255 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

On account of love and affection as well as fascination for each other, they solemnized marriage on 23.3.2026 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. As such, Petitioners are now living as husband and wife. It is next contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that in view of above, criminal prosecution of petitioners pursuant to impugned F.I.R. cannot be sustained either in law or on fact. To buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgements of Supreme Court in K. Dhandapani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1056 and Mafat Lal and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589 and Shriram Urav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2021, With reference to above the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgements quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that the accused has solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix and secondly the court cannot turn a blind eye to the said development. As such, present writ petition is liable to be allowed.

¶18

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents-1,2 and 3 has vehemently opposed the 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.

¶19

Having heard the learned learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents-1,23 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

¶20

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

¶21

Issue notice to first informant/respondent-4.

¶22

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

¶23

All the respondents may file their respective counter affidavit with six weeks.

¶24

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

¶25

CRLP No. 7255 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

List this petition for admission before appropriate Bench on 29.5.2026.

¶28

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. 63 of 2026, under sections 87 BNS, Police Station- Binawar, District- Budaun, arising out of the impugned F.I.R dated 19.3.2026.

¶29

This Court is not unmindful of the judgement of Supreme Court in Pradanya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of M.P., 2025 SCC On Line Sc 1948. Accordingly we further direct that investigation of concerned case crime number shall 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.

¶30

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

¶31

Assignment, if any, stands discharged.

¶32

April 3, 2026 Arshad

¶33

(Chawan Prakash,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Roshni and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshni 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Krishna Pandey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amit vs State of U.P. and Another

National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Maya Devi and 3 Others

Phoolmati vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Behari Lal Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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