Allahabad High Court refuses to quash FIR in alleged love jihad case [Read Order]

The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings lodged on a Muslim boy for allegedly kidnapping/alluring a Hindu girl to compel her marriage in Mathura. 

The division bench of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi was hearing a writ petition filed by the girl and the boy seeking quashing of the FIR and protection against arrest of the boy.

The FIR lodged by the girl's paternal aunt stated that the girl had been enticed away by the boy on August 17 and taken her to an "unknown destination". It further stated that the said boy was 'after her daughter' and that the informant (the aunt) feared of untoward circumstances arising with her daughter.

Adv. Sadaqat Ullah Khan for the petitioners claimed that the couple were seeking protection from the police as they had decided to be in a "live-in relationship".

He further said that as an adult of 20 years of age, the girl had the right to choose her partner and had chosen "petitioner no.2 as her boyfriend with whom she
wants to have a live-in relationship."

The petitioners further stated that the informant was not the girl's biological mother but her aunt, and used to regularly torture her. They also stated that the FIR was not lodged by the girl's own father either.

Refusing to accept such arguments, the Court said that it could not accept the submissions since they were all a subject-matter of investigation.

Terming the submissions "superficial" the Court said that this cannot be the ground for quashing of the FIR.

It opined, that the role of the FIR is  giving information to the police, for which the police takes action against known or unknown accused persons.

Therefore, it said that "it hardly makes any difference as to who has lodged the FIR - the mother or her aunt."

The complainant aunt on the other hand argued that the said boy is a vagabond with a chequered past and already faces an FIR under Sections 2, 3 of the UP Gangsters Act.

She said that the boy is a roadside-Romeo with no future and would "certainly ruin the life of the girl".

Having heard both sides, the Court said that it had its reservations regarding this "type of a
relationship".

It further said that it feels that "such type of relationship" is based "more on infatuation" than with the purpose of having "stability".

Hence, the bench said that "unless and until the couple decides to marry and give their relationship a name", or show that "they are sincere towards each other," the Court will not express any opinion on the matter.

Referring to the sanction granted by the Supreme Court to live-in relationships, the Court said that, "No doubt that the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of cases, has validated live-in relationships but in a span of two months at a tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would
be able to give a serious thought" to the temporary nature of their relationship.

It went on to add that in the present case, "it is more of infatuation against opposite sex without any sincerity."

Cautioning that "life is not a bed of roses...It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows, that such type of relationship often result into timepass, temporary and fragile", it decided that it would neither quash the FIR nor give any protection to the petitioner at the present stage of investigation.

With this, it dismissed the petition. 

[Read Order]