Allahabad High Court shuns and avoids expressing any opinion on petition unless couple gives name to relationship


The Allahabad High Court while rejecting the petition said that unless and until the couple decides to marry and give the name of their relationship or they are sincere towards each other, the Court shuns and avoids expressing any opinion in such a type of relationship.

The Division Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi passed this order while hearing a petition filed by the different religious couple.

By means of the petition, the petitioners are invoking the extra-ordinary power of the Court by means of Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the FIR dated 17.08.2023 in case under section 366 IPC Police station Refinery, District-Mathura.

Ahsan Firoz is the cousin of petitioner no 2, who has sworn the affidavit claiming himself to be the cousin in support of the petition filed by the aforesaid petitioners.

The prayer sought by the petitioners is as follows:-

"(i)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report dated 17.08.2023 under section 366 IPC having case crime no.0251 of 2023, Police station-Refinery, District-Mathura lodged by respondent no 4 in respect of petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the First Information Report dated 17.08.2023 under section 366 IPC having case Police station-Refinery, District-Mathura lodged by respondent no 3."

Counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners who are ostensibly of the different religion(Hindu and Muslim), are in torrid affair with each other and petitioner no 2 have enticed away the girl on 17.08.2023 at 12 in the noon of which the FIR was registered at 19:02 hours on the same day by one Mithilesh against sole named accused Sohail Khan @ Sohil, petitioner no 2.

The allegation is that the informant claims that her daughter (20 years) joined the company of petitioner no 2 to some unknown destination. She also alleges that Sohail Khan@Sohil is after her daughter and anything untoward may happen to her daughter.

Sadaqat Ullah Khan, counsel for the petitioners further stated that the petitioners came before the Court seeking protection from the police as the couple have decided to "remain in live-in relationship".

It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioners that as per High School Certificate, age of victim is 18th September, 2002 and as such, it is stated that she is major girl of 20 years and has every right to decide her future and she has chosen petitioner no 2 as her boyfriend with whom she wants to have live-in relationship.

Counsel for the petitioners secondly argued that the informant is not the real mother of the victim. It is further stated that respondent no 4 used to treat the petitioner no 1 in a most inhuman way and used to physically torture her.

It is further contended that petitioner no 1 is father who has never come forward to lodge the FIR but the informant who is her Aunt (bua) lodged this FIR. All these matters are subject matter of investigation and cannot be looked into at this stage.

The Court was afraid to accept the superficial submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioners to the extent that this cannot be the ground for quashing the FIR. The role of the FIR is an information given to the police for which policy takes action against known or unknown accused persons. It hardly makes any difference who has lodged the FIR, whether she is the mother or her aunt.

Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioners by making a mention that the petitioner no 2 has got a chequered past and an FIR police station-Chhata, District-Agra has been lodged against him under section 2/3 of the U.P Gangster Act and at this strength, it is contended by counsel for the informant that the petitioner is road-romeo and vagabond and who have no future for his own life and with all certainty, he would ruin the life of the girl.

“The Court has its own reservation regarding such type of relationship and shall not be misconstrued that the Court is passing any remark or validate such type of relationship of the petitioners or protect them from any legal proceeding instituted in accordance with law.

The Court feels that such a type of relationship is more of infatuation than to have stability and sincerity. Unless and until the couple decides to marry and give the name of their relationship or they are sincere towards each other, the Court shuns and avoids expressing any opinion in such a type of relationship.

No doubt that the Apex Court in a number of cases have validated the live-in relationship but in the span of two months in a tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would be able to give a serious thought over their such type of temporary relationship. As mentioned above, it is more of infatuation against the opposite sex without any sincerity. Life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows that such a type of relationship often results in timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation”, the Court observed while rejecting the petition.