Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition challenging the First Information Report (‘FIR’) dated 17-08-2023 under Section 366 of the Penal Code, 1860 the division bench of Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrissi, JJ. while denying giving protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation, said that live-in relationships are timepass, temporary and fragile.
The petitioners came before this Court seeking protection from the police as the inter-religion couple had decided to “remain in a live-in relationship”. The petitioners contended that the informant lodged this FIR, is not the real mother of the girl. She is her aunt. The petitioner’s real father never came forward to lodge the FIR.
The Court rejected this contention and said that this cannot be the ground for quashing of the FIR. The role of the FIR is information given to the police for which police takes action against known or unknown accused persons. It hardly makes any difference that who has lodged the FIR, whether she is the mother or her aunt.
The Court said that it has its own reservation regarding such type of relationship and shall not be misconstrued that the Court is passing any remark or validate such type of relationship of the petitioners or protect them from any legal proceeding instituted in accordance with law. The Court feels that such a type of relationship is more of infatuation than to have stability and sincerity. Unless and until the couple decides to marry and give the name to their relationship or they are sincere towards each other, the Court shuns and avoids expressing any opinion in such a type of relationship.
The Court said that the Supreme Court have validated the live-in relationship but in the span of two months in a tender age of 20-22 years, its not expected that the couple would be able to give a serious thought over their such type of temporary relationship.
The Court remarked that life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Such types of relationship are timepass, temporary and fragile. Thus, the Court refused to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation.
[X v State of U.P, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2052, Order dated 25-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner :- Advocate Shadab Ahmad, Advocate Sadaqat Ullah Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- Government Advocate Dhirendra Kumar Verma, Advocate Srawan Kumar Swarnkar
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
