HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8168 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State- respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 3. This writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 25.08.2025 lodged by opposite party no.4, bearing FIR No.0310 of 2025, under section 87 and 137 (2) of BNS, lodged at Police Station Khairabad, District Sitapur, with respect to petitioner no.2 to 4, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 and 3 not to arrest the petitioner no.2 to 4 in pursuance of impugned FIR dated 25.08.2025 lodged by opposite party no.4, bearing FIR No.0310 of 2025, under section 87 and 137 (2) of BNS, lodged at Police Station - Khairabad, District Sitapur, only with respect to petitioner no.2 to 4, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition." 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 states that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mata Prasad Chaturvedi, Shiv Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Vinod Kumar Kahkaisha And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) although the respondent no. 4 was required to appear in person before this Court today but on account of his medical condition, he is unable to appear before this Court today. The statement of learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has been recorded. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that from the perusal of the impugned FIR, it emerges that the respondent no. 4 has lodged the said FIR by contending that the petitioner no. 2 has enticed away his daughter (petitioner no. 1) herein and the petitioner nos. 3 and 4, who are relatives of the petitioner no. 2, have connived in the same. 6. The contention is that although the marriage of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had been fixed earlier by the family members and the ring ceremony was held on 20.6.2025 and the marriage itself was fixed in December, 2025 but thereafter the parents of the petitioner no. 1 were not agreeable for the marriage. Therefore, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 with their own will and volition married on 25.8.2025. Copy of Nikah Nama has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition. 7. Earlier this Court vide order dated 4.9.2025 directed the respondent authorities that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner no. 2. Subsequent thereto, by means of the order dated 16.9.2025 and considering that in the impugned FIR, the age of the petitioner no. 1 was indicated as 16 years, as such, the Court directed for an ossification test of petitioner no. 1 to be held. On 26.9.2025, the statement of the learned AGA was recorded as finds place in the paragraph 5 of the order dated 26.9.2025 passed by this Court that in the ossification test, age of the petitioner no. 1 has come about 19 years and her statement under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 has also been recorded in which she did not support the prosecution case and stated that she has solemnized Nikah with petitioner no. 2 and wants to live with him. 9. Further this Court was of the view, more particularly, considering the undertaking given by the petitioner no. 2-husband of petitioner no. 1 that he would deposit rupees two lacs in the name of petitioner no. 1 as fixed deposit and shall produce a copy of the certificate of the same before this CRLP No. 8168 of 2025 2 Court. 10. In pursuance thereof, today learned counsel for the petitioners has produced two FDR receipts of rupees one lac each as deposited on 10.10.2025 and 7.11.2025 having the maturity date of 28.12.2026 and 25.1.2027. The original receipts produced before this Court have been perused and returned back to the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it thus, emerges that although the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 contending that his daughter-petitioner no. 1 has been enticed away by the petitioner no. 2 in which petitioner nos. 3 and 4 have also connived yet it has emerged that both the petitioners no. 1 and 2 have got married and the ossification test reveals the age of the petitioner no. 1 as 19 years which fact is also admitted by Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that the petitioner no. 1 is major. 12. Admittedly petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have got married and petitioner no. 2 has also got two FDR made in her name in order to protect her interest. Thus, it is apparent that the version of the FIR is not supported by the developments which have emerged and transpired, as indicated above. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned FIR dated 25.08.2025 lodged by opposite party no.4, bearing FIR No.0310 of 2025, under section 87 and 137 (2) of BNS, lodged at Police Station Khairabad, District Sitapur, with respect to petitioner no.2 to 4 is quashed. November 25, 2025 AKK CRLP No. 8168 of 2025 3 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench