1. Metadata
Case Name: Sonu @ Shahnur v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Citation: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 24122 of 2025
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar (Single Judge)
Applicant: Sonu @ Shahnur
Respondents: State of U.P. and Another
Date of Judgment: 24 July 2025
2. Introduction
This case involves an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed before the Allahabad High Court by the applicant, Sonu alias Shahnur, seeking the quashing of a summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings registered against him. The applicant faced charges including kidnapping, rape, and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 arising from an FIR lodged by the father of a minor girl in February 2020.
The applicant sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that he had married the complainant’s daughter at an Arya Samaj Mandir and that the girl had continued to reside with him voluntarily after attaining majority. The application raised several intersecting legal issues: the validity of a marriage involving a minor, the legal requirements for inter-religious marriages involving conversion, the evidentiary value of Arya Samaj marriage certificates, and the broader problem of Arya Samaj Mandirs being used to solemnise marriages involving minors without proper verification of age or legal requirements. The court rejected the application and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue.
3. Summary of Facts
An FIR was registered on 15 February 2020 by the father of a minor girl, alleging that his daughter had been kidnapped by the applicant and others. The police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet. The trial court took cognisance of the offences on 12 September 2024.
The applicant filed the present application before the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, contending that he had married the girl on 14 February 2020 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Prayagraj, and that the girl had been residing with him of her own free will after attaining majority. The applicant relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) to argue that a consensual relationship should not be criminalised under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 when the alleged victim continues the relationship voluntarily after reaching adulthood.
The prosecution countered that the complainant’s daughter was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. Further, as the parties belonged to different religious communities, any marriage between them required a lawful religious conversion under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, which had not been effected. The prosecution also submitted that the Arya Samaj marriage certificate appeared to be fabricated and was not supported by valid registration under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017.
4. Issues Before the Court
Issue 1: Whether the purported marriage of the applicant with the minor girl at Arya Samaj Mandir could be held valid in law, having regard to the girl’s age as a minor and the absence of lawful religious conversion as required by the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
Issue 2: Whether the criminal proceedings, including the summoning order dated 12 September 2024, could be quashed on the basis of the applicant’s contention that a valid consensual marriage existed between him and the complainant’s daughter.
5. Arguments by Both Parties
Arguments of the Applicant:
The applicant submitted that a valid marriage had been solemnised between him and the complainant’s daughter at Arya Samaj Mandir, Prayagraj, on 14 February 2020 and that the girl had been residing with him willingly after she attained majority. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the applicant argued that criminalising a consensual relationship that had subsisted into adulthood was contrary to the principles applicable to such cases. The applicant contended that the FIR was motivated by parental disapproval and that continuing the prosecution would serve no legitimate purpose given the consensual nature of the relationship.
Arguments of the Respondent:
The State submitted that the complainant’s daughter was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, rendering any claimed marriage legally void regardless of the parties’ consent. Since the applicant and the girl belonged to different religious communities, any valid marriage between them required a lawful conversion in compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, which had not been carried out. The prosecution further submitted that the Arya Samaj marriage certificate appeared to be fabricated and was not validly registered under the applicable rules. These circumstances made the applicant’s claim of a valid marriage untenable and the prosecution was rightly proceeding on the basis of the offences charged.
6. Reasonings and Findings
The Allahabad High Court rejected the application and held that the criminal proceedings were rightly continuing against the applicant. The court’s reasoning proceeded on three distinct grounds.
First, the court held that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents. A marriage involving a minor is void under applicable law, regardless of any ceremony that may have been performed. The alleged Arya Samaj marriage could confer no legal validity on the union, and the applicant’s claim of a lawful marriage therefore failed at the threshold.
Second, the court observed that the applicant and the complainant’s daughter belonged to different religious communities, and for a valid marriage to be contracted between them, the party converting would be required to comply with the procedures prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. No such conversion had been effected, which provided an additional and independent basis for holding the purported marriage to be legally invalid.
Third, the court found that the Arya Samaj marriage certificate relied upon by the applicant was not supported by valid registration under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 and raised concerns about its authenticity. The court took note of a growing and troubling pattern in which certain Arya Samaj Mandirs were conducting marriages involving minors and inter-religious couples without conducting any due diligence in respect of age, consent, or legal requirements. The court directed the Home Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to conduct an inquiry into such practices across the State.
7. Judgment and Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application and declined to quash the FIR or the summoning order dated 12 September 2024. The court held that the purported marriage of the applicant with the minor girl was void ab initio on account of the girl’s minority and the absence of lawful religious conversion under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The court directed the Home Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to conduct a statewide inquiry into Arya Samaj Mandirs that conduct illegal marriages, including marriages involving minors. The decision affirms the judiciary’s commitment to child protection and the strict enforcement of laws against the exploitation of minors under the guise of marriage.
8. Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. Why is a marriage involving a minor void in law?
Under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, a marriage in which either party is below the prescribed minimum age is voidable at the option of the minor party. Courts have consistently held that such marriages cannot be used as a shield against criminal liability for offences committed against the minor, including rape and kidnapping under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Q2. What does the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 require?
The Act prohibits unlawful religious conversion by force, fraud, allurement, or marriage. It requires that any conversion for the purpose of marriage must follow a prescribed legal procedure, including prior notice to the authorities. Conversion that does not comply with these requirements is treated as unlawful and may attract criminal liability. In this case, no such lawful conversion had taken place before the purported marriage.
Q3. Can a consensual relationship formed during minority provide a defence against POCSO charges?
No. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 does not recognise consent by a minor as a valid defence to sexual offences. The fact that a relationship may have continued voluntarily after the victim attained majority does not retrospectively validate conduct that constituted an offence at the time it was committed against a minor.
Q4. Why did the court direct an inquiry into Arya Samaj Mandirs?
The court observed that a pattern had emerged in which certain Arya Samaj Mandirs were facilitating marriages without verifying the age of the parties or their compliance with legal requirements for inter-religious unions. By directing the Home Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to conduct a statewide inquiry, the court sought to address this systemic problem and prevent such institutions from being misused as vehicles for evading the criminal law protection afforded to minors.
Q5. What is the significance of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the successor provision to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice. Applications to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings are filed under this provision. However, such powers are not exercised to shield accused persons from prosecution for serious offences where the evidence on record warrants a trial.
