HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19634 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 22.08.2025, giving rise to Case Crime No. 0623 of 2025, under Section 137(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that from a plain reading of the impugned FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner no. 2. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is a major and both, petitioner no. 1 and 2, have married each other out of their free will and wish on 18.08.2025 at the Arya Samaj Marriage Trust, New Delhi and are living together peacefully as husband and wife. A copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Marriage Trust, New Delhi is appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. In support of the age of petitioner no. 1 (victim), learned counsel for the petitioners has annexed a copy of the Aadhar Card where her date of birth is mentioned as 19.03.2003. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since both the petitioners are major and have married each other according to their free will and are living together happily as man and wife, the instant FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of court which has been brought in order to harass the petitioner no. 2 and, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Bhan Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Simran And Another .....Petitioner(s) Uttar Pradesh Rajya And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) petition and submitted that petitioner no. 1 is a minor. He submits that the petitioner has not annexed any legal document ascertaining the age of petitioner no. 1. He further submits that from a plain reading of the FIR, a cognizable offence is made out against petitioner no. 2. He submits that as per the FIR, the girl is a minor aged 17 years old. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the statement of petitioner no. 1 could not be taken as she is not traceable as yet and the Police is searching her. He submits that this is not a case where this Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record as well as the averments made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the averments made by the learned counsel for the parties and given the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the case diary, which has been produced before the Court by the learned A.G.A., and the statement therein where the age of petitioner no. 1 is stated to be only 17 years of age, the fact that no legal document has been appended with the writ petition for ascertaining the age of the girl, the fact that from a perusal of the FIR a cognizable offence is made out against petitioner no. 2 and, in particular, considering the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, [1992 SCC (Cri) 426], we do not find any merit in the instant petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. However, it would be open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Court for seeking anticipatory bail or other remedy under the law, as advised. October 9, 2025 Brijesh Maurya CRLP No. 19634 of 2025 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad