This batch of criminal writ petitions, led by Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8465 of 2026, was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 85, 115(2), 64, 351(2), 61(2)(a), and 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Section 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, and Sections 5(1)/6 and 17/18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, at Police Station Saidnagli, District Amroha. The petitioners, including collateral relatives and religious functionaries accused of facilitating and orchestrating forced nikah halala rituals, argued that personal laws permitted these practices, that the allegations stemmed from a civil dispute over child custody and property, and that the FIR was an abuse of process. Dismissing the petitions, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that sexual acts performed with a minor under the garb of personal law or halala constitute statutory rape under the POCSO Act (per Independent Thought v. Union of India), and that subsequent allegations of forced halala involving coercion, deceit, and gang-rapePrima facie disclose heinous cognizable offences that shock the conscience of the court, precluding any interference or quashing at the threshold.
- Factual Matrix and Allegations:
- The prosecutrix alleged that she was forced into marriage at the age of 15 in April 2015 with co-accused Azhar Nawaz, subjected to domestic violence, and given a Triple Talaq in January 2016.
- To remarry her ex-husband, she was forced in November 2016 (while still a minor) to undergo a halala nikah with co-accused Maulana Qayyum, orchestrated and performed by religious functionaries and relatives.
- Following a second divorce in 2021 and subsequent reconciliation attempts, she was subjected to a second forced halala in February 2025 by co-accused Shahnawaz Chaudhary and Hakim Nishat under threat of death, followed by a fraudulent and bogus nikah
- Arguments of the Petitioners:
- Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that nikah halala is a valid traditional ritual under Islamic Shariat law, and that triple talaq (at the relevant time) and personal laws governed the parties.
- It was argued that the FIR was a retaliatory measure lodged due to a civil/custody dispute over the couple’s minor daughter after the husband filed complaints on the Integrated Grievance Redressal System (IGRS) portal.
- The petitioners claimed minor or marginal roles—ranging from aged relatives to individuals who merely acted as religious scholars (Kari or witnesses)—and asserted no direct involvement in the primary sexual offences.
- Arguments of the State and Informant:
- The Additional Government Advocate and counsel for the informant (respondent no. 5) vehemently opposed the petitions, highlighting that the initial halala involved a minor, which constitutes statutory rape irrespective of personal law protections.
- Relying on international conventions (such as CEDAW) and landmark jurisprudence like Independent Thought v. Union of India, it was emphasized that personal laws cannot serve as a shield to perpetrate gender-based violence, sexual exploitation, or gang rape.
- The conduct of the accused, including subsequent threats resulting in another criminal case (Crime No. 122 of 2026), demonstrated an ongoing pattern of criminality and defiance of law.
- Legal Principles and Court Observations:
- The Court underscored that under Independent Thought, any sexual relation with a minor below 18 years is strictly prohibited, overriding personal laws and attracting the severe penal consequences of the POCSO Act.
- The Court observed that using the veil of halala to subject a woman to repeated carnal exploitation, deception, and forced sexual acts prima facie constitutes heinous offences, including gang rape under the BNS.
- Citing parameters from Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that High Courts must be extremely slow to quash an FIR at the threshold when serious cognizable offenses involving sexual violence are disclosed.
- Final Decision:
- Finding the allegations deeply disturbing and shocking to the judicial conscience, the High Court held that the matter warranted a thorough and unhindered police investigation.
All connected writ petitions were dismissed, and all interim protection orders were vacated.
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 28
Tayyab v. State of U.P. and others (D.O.J. 01.07.2026)
J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 28 click here to view full text of judgment
