The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with a criminal case involving allegations that a woman was subjected to sexual exploitation under the guise of nikah halala, observing that the accusations, if accepted at this stage, disclose serious cognisable offences requiring a thorough investigation. The Court held that it could not quash the FIR merely because some accused claimed to have played limited roles or relied on personal law practices.
Background of the Case
The batch of petitions challenged an FIR registered at Saidnagli Police Station in Amroha district. According to the complainant, she was allegedly forced into her first marriage in April 2015 while she was around 15 years old. She stated that after being divorced through triple talaq in 2016, she was allegedly made to undergo a nikah halala ceremony before remarrying her former husband.
The FIR further alleges that after another divorce in 2021, she was again persuaded to return to her former husband for the sake of their daughter. She claimed she was told that another halala was necessary and alleged that she was sexually assaulted under that pretext before being falsely led to believe that a fresh marriage with her former husband had taken place. Based on her statements during the investigation, additional accused were later included and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act were invoked.
Petitioners' Arguments
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that nikah halala was recognised under Islamic personal law and that triple talaq was legally permissible when the first events allegedly occurred in 2016. It was also contended that the complainant was a major at the time of her marriage, that the criminal proceedings were motivated by a custody dispute over the couple's daughter, and that several petitioners had been implicated solely because they were relatives or had allegedly performed religious functions.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The petitioners also maintained that some accused had only marginal involvement and therefore the FIR deserved to be quashed at the threshold.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena was not persuaded by these submissions.
The Court noted that while the constitutional validity of nikah halala was not under challenge in these proceedings, personal law could not be used as a defence if the allegations disclosed offences under criminal law.
The Bench observed,
"When it comes to criminal law... there is absolutely no place for pleading personal laws governing marriage... if, interlaced with a matrimonial relationship, a crime were committed."
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Independent Thought v. Union of India, the High Court said that sexual relations involving a person below 18 years of age attract the provisions of the POCSO Act, irrespective of claims based on personal law. It noted that, based on the medical material and chronology available at this stage, the complainant was prima facie a minor when the first alleged halala took place in 2016.
The Bench further examined the complainant's statement recorded during investigation and found that it contained detailed allegations regarding the circumstances of both the alleged halala ceremonies and the roles attributed to different accused persons. It emphasised that while hearing a petition to quash an FIR, the Court could not determine whether those allegations were ultimately true or false.
Court Says Investigation Must Continue
The High Court held that the allegations, taken at face value, disclosed serious offences warranting a complete investigation.
The Bench observed,
"This matter requires thorough investigation. It is certainly not a case where the prosecution can be quashed at the threshold."
The Court also remarked that, on a prima facie reading of the record, the allegations raised issues touching upon constitutional values relating to dignity and equality. However, it clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the constitutionality of nikah halala itself, which was not an issue before it.
Decision
Dismissing all the connected writ petitions, the Allahabad High Court declined to quash the FIR and allowed the criminal investigation to proceed. The Court also vacated all interim protection that had earlier been granted to the petitioners.
Case Details:
Case Title: Tayyab v. State of U.P. and Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8465 of 2026 (along with connected Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 2789 of 2026, 3132 of 2026 and 6019 of 2026)
Judge: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena
Decision Date: 1 July 2026
