Bombay High Court: While considering an application seeking quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet registered for offences under Sections 299 and 302 read with Section 3(5), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of M.W. Chandwani, J., held that mere promotion of religion or persuasion to convert does not amount to outraging religious feelings under Sections 299 and 302 BNS. The Court observed that the allegations merely disclosed promotion of Christianity and efforts to persuade the complainant and his wife to convert from Hinduism to Christianity. The Court accordingly quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Also Read: Kar HC: Distributing pamphlets about teachings of Islam not religious conversion
Background
The applicants sought quashing of Crime No. 21/2026 dated 14-01-2026, registered at Chandur Bazar Police Station, District Amravati, under Ss. 299 and 302 r/w S. 3(5) BNS, and of Charge-sheet No. 36/2026. According to the charge-sheet, applicant no. 1, an office bearer of the Indian Children New Life Mission, told the complainant, who worked there as a social worker, that they would bear the education expenses of his children and construct a house for the family.
The allegations against the applicants were that they pressurised and insisted the complainant and his wife to convert to Christianity, thereby hurting the religious sentiments of the complainant.
The applicants contended that no offence under Section 299 or Section 302 BNS was made out. It was argued that there was no allegation of any deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings, nor any allegation that any religion had been insulted. The applicants further submitted that prosecution under Section 299 BNS required prior sanction from the State, which had not been obtained. On these grounds, quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet was sought.
On the other hand, the State submitted that the applicants were insisting on conversion by enticing the complainant and his wife. They were providing an honorarium of ₹6750 per month for working at Indian Children New Life Mission, Chandur Bazar, offered to retain the services of the complainant and his wife permanently at the institution, take care of their children’s educational expenses and also construct a house if they agreed to convert to Christianity.
Analysis
The Court noted that the applicants were allegedly trying to entice the complainant and his wife to convert to Christianity. The FIR further alleged that, between 1 September 2025 and 1 November 2025, the applicants had been pressuring the complainant and his wife to write themselves as Christians in all official documents. It was also alleged that the applicants, through the promotion of their religion, were attempting to brainwash the children attending Sunday school.
The Court observed that the allegations showed only that the applicants were promoting Christianity and attempting to persuade the complainant and his wife to convert from Hinduism to Christianity. The Court noted that there was no allegation anywhere in the complaint suggesting that the applicants had deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens or had insulted the complainant’s religious beliefs.
The Court highlighted that the allegations merely indicated promotion of one’s own religion which could not automatically be equated with outraging religious feelings of any class. The Court therefore held that the ingredients of Section 299 BNS were not fulfilled. The Court further noted that under Section 217, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), prior sanction of the State or Central Government was a sine qua non for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 299 BNS. Since no such sanction had been obtained, continuation of the prosecution was unsustainable.
While examining Section 302 BNS, the Court observed that there was nothing on record indicating that the applicants had uttered any word, made any sound, or made any gesture with the intent to wound the religious feelings of any person. The Court thus held that the ingredients of Section 302 were not satisfied. At the highest, the allegations suggested insistence upon conversion from Hinduism to Christianity, which did not amount to wounding religious feelings within the meaning of the provision. The Court also noted that Section 302 is a non-cognizable offence.
The Court further observed that the alleged acts had taken place between January and November 2025. During that period, there was no law in force in Maharashtra prohibiting conversion from one religion to another by way of allurement. The Court noted that the State enacted legislation concerning protection of freedom of religion and prohibition of unlawful conversion only in 2026, which came into force on 28 August 2026. Therefore, on the date of the alleged conduct, there existed no statutory prohibition against conversion by way of allurement.
The Court relied upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and referred to the well-settled categories in which the High Court may exercise its inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. One of the categories was:
“Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.”
The Court observed that the allegations contained in the FIR did not disclose commission of any offence and that the case squarely fell within the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal.
Also Read: SC: Conversion to Christianity ends Scheduled Caste status
Decision
Consequently, while allowing the application, the Court quashed the FIR registered for offences under Sections 299 and 302 read with Section 3(5) BNS as well as the consequential charge sheet.
[Joseph v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (APL) No. 483 of 2026, decided on 6-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicants: Deepak Khushlani, Advocate.
For the State: D.I. Charlewar, APP.
