Ayyub Malik vs State Of Uttarakhand

2026 INSC 331 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1480 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.14077 of 2025)

AYYUB MALIK AND ANOTHER …APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

Aim of all legal proceedings is to arrive at justice, a

meaningful and substantive. In some cases, the justice is done

by bringing home the outcome in accordance with law,

whereas in some matters, the action in law would deserve to

be halted soon and terminated discontinuing the process,

yielding to the legitimate demand of facts and warrant of

circumstances.

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran along with

learned advocate-on-record Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay

appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Ms. Saakshi Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

Singh Rawat along with learned advocate-on-record Mr. NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2026.04.07 18:05:34 IST Reason:

Sudarshan Singh Rawat for the respondents.

1 2.1 Ayyub Malik-appellant No.1 herein and Shahzadi-

appellant No.2 herein, who are husband and wife, have filed

this appeal addressing the challenge to judgment and order

dated 19.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at

Nainital, whereby the High Court dismissed Criminal Misc.

Application No.566 of 2021 filed by appellant No.1, which was

an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19731 seeking to quash the charge-sheet,

summoning order and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.10

of 2021.

3. First Information Report2 No.0239 of 2020 came to filed

on 01.06.2020 at Gangnahar Police Station, Haridwar by the

complainant-respondent No.2 herein, who happens to be the

father of appellant No.2. The complainant’s case in the FIR

was that his daughter named Shehzadi-appellant No.2 whose

age was stated to be 17 years, went missing from the house on

24.05.2020 at around 6 o’clock. Despite strenuous search, the

daughter was not found. The complainant stated that he was

informed by one Vaseen Sakur that he saw Shehzadi going

with Ayyub Malik-appellant No.1 of village Saliyar. It was

1 Hereinafter, “Cr.PC.”.

2 Hereinafter, “FIR”.

2 alleged in the FIR that appellant No.1 enticed the daughter of

the complainant and took her away.

3.1 The Competent Court took cognizance on 07.01.2021

and appellant No.1 was charge-sheeted for the offences

punishable under Sections 363, 368, 376(2)(d) of the Indian

Penal Code, 18603 as well as under Sections 5(8) and 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20124. The

said FIR resulted into filing of Criminal Case No.10 of 2021

registered with the Court of learned Additional District &

Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar5.

3.2 Appellant No.1 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.566 of

2021 before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

seeking to get the said criminal proceedings quashed.

3.3 What was submitted before the High Court by appellant

No.1 was inter-alia that he and the daughter of respondent

No.2, that is the complainant, had married on 29.05.2020,

before lodging of the FIR on 01.06.2020. The High Court

reasoned that since the State had stated in its counter affidavit

that the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident and

3 Hereinafter, “IPC”.

4 Hereinafter, “POCSO Act”.

5 Hereinafter, “trial court”.

3 that the submissions raised on behalf of the applicant could

not be considered without leading of evidence, refused to

quash the proceedings.

3.4 Calling in question the judgment and order of the High

Court, the present appeal has been preferred by appellant

Nos.1 and 2 jointly. It is the case of both the appellants that

both of them were in relationship of love with each other since

long. It was stated that as there was an opposition from their

family members, appellant Nos.1 and 2 ran away from their

house and got married on 25.09.2020 as per the Muslim rites

and rituals. It was stated that the marriage was performed

before a Kazi, pursuant to which a marriage certificate dated

25.09.2020 was also issued. It was next stated that appellant

Nos.1 and 2 were major in age on the date of contracting of

marriage, as the date of birth of appellant No.2 is 28.05.2000.

In the appeal before this Court, both the appellants affirmed

their separate affidavits in support of their case, making joint

prayer for quashment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

appellants have been living in matrimonial relationship which

aspect should have weighed with the High Court and in that

4 view the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR ought to

have been quashed. While countering the said submission on

behalf of the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents

could not dispute the factum of marriage between the

appellants.

5. There is no gainsaying that the appellants are presently

a married couple. Both, out of their own wish and volition tied

matrimonial knot as per the rites of their religion. Both belong

to the same religion. The appeal before this Court came to be

filed by both of them jointly seeking to quash the criminal

proceedings which were initiated at the instance of respondent

No.2-father of appellant No.2. It is also not disputed that the

parties have been happily residing at their matrimonial home

at village Saliyar Salhapur, Ganganahar, Roorkee, Haridwar.

It was stated that a child has been born out of the wedlock.

5.1 Appellant No.2 gave her statement under Section 164 of

the Cr.PC. before the police at the very initial stage on

10.08.2020. She stated on oath thus,

“We have married. We love each other, our family members came to know and they were unwilling. We left the house and got married and now our family members are harassing us. I am happy with him and I want to live with him only. Some people are torturing us and giving

5 us threats to kill, we want to live in our hoe at Saliyer. I am also an adult and have married of my own will. This is my statement.”

5.2 A faint attempt was made by learned counsel for the

respondent to try and submit that at the time of incident when

the appellant ran away with appellant No.2, appellant No.2

was a minor and was not of marriageable age. On the other

hand, it is claimed that the boy and girl had attained

marriageable age when they entered into matrimonial

relationship. Whether appellant No.2 was minor of the age

little less than the marriageable, whether appellant No.1 lured

appellant No.2 and made her eloped with him and whether the

conduct on the part of appellant No.1 was in the nature of

offence alleged against him or not, are the questions which all

pale into insignificance.

5.3 The situation is obtained that now the parties voluntarily

got married and started residing and living together to lead

their married life without any complaint. It is noticeable that

when the FIR was filed by the father of appellant No.2 on

01.06.2020, both the appellants had already married

according to their own will and choice. Presently, both are

6 major and almost six years have elapsed since they are in

matrimonial relationship with each other.

6. It may be true that fleeing with a girl who is not of

marriageable age and who is minor is an offence under law,

however, the subsequent development of marriage between the

two lovers and the fact that they have been merrily living would

outweigh the need to take the alleged offence or the criminal

proceedings to their logical end. In the fact situation like one

obtained in the present one, continuation of criminal

proceedings against appellant No.1 would become harassing

and stand as an abuse of process of law.

6.1 Any litigation brings a kind of botheration for the parties.

The uncertainty of the outcome of the litigation always looms

large. When it is a criminal case, its pendency becomes

burdensome and worrisome. For appellant No.1 as well as

appellant No.2, negotiating the criminal proceedings in a court

of law, notwithstanding that both are now husband and wife

living together, would operate as painful interference in their

happy life. The High Court would have done justice to the

parties only by quashing the criminal proceedings against

7 appellant No.1 initiated by the complainant-father of appellant

No.2.

7. In K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu6, where the

facts were similar and akin to the present one, this Court,

while quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant

therein including the conviction and sentence, quoted

Benjamin N. Cardozo, Former Associate Justice of the

Supreme Court of United States, “The final cause of law is the

welfare of society.”

8. Here are the parties in the present case who are the

spouses living and leading their matrimony. In the interest of

rendering complete justice to them, criminal case against

appellant No.1 is required to be put to an end finally. Since it

was stated that the appellants have been staying happily and

peacefully and that appellant No.1 is taking good care of

appellant No.2, this Court does not impose any condition on

appellant No.1 hoping earnestly that he and his family

members would continue to extend due care and affection to

appellant No.2.

6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307

8

9. For the facts aforestated and reasons foregoing, the

impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2025 passed by

the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.566 of 2021

is set aside. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10 of 2021

pending before the Court of Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Haridwar as well as all proceedings and orders

incidental thereto are also quashed. The pending proceedings

against appellant No.1 shall stand quashed.

10. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

In view of disposal of the appeal as above, the

interlocutory applications, if any, shall not survive.

…………………………...J. [VIKRAM NATH]

………………………….J. [N.V. ANJARIA]

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 19, 2026.

9