Allahabad High Court: In a set of two writ petitions filed by women accused of compelling a friend to convert to Islam, the Division Bench of J.J. Munir* and Tarun Saxena, JJ., dismissed the petitions, holding that a case for intervention and quashing of FIR was not made out based on the evidence. The Court also remarked that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (U.P. Conversion Act), was enacted to curtail the problem of certain people thrusting their religion on others.
Background
The brother of the victim lodged an FIR under Sections 3 and 5(1), U.P. Conversion Act alleging that his sister, a Class 12th Student, who attends tuition in Shahkunj Colony, Moradabad, was being allured and compelled by the accused persons, fellow tuition mates/friends, into accepting Islam. He claimed to suspect some deep conspiracy behind this activity.
Aggrieved, the accused persons filed the present petitions seeking the quashing of the FIR.
The victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), stated that there was one incident where she, along with her five Muslim friends, was going for snacks after classes, and they forced her to wear a burqa that Accused 1 had brought. She also claimed that all these friends would bring non-vegetarian food and lure her to eat it despite her refusal. She specifically stated that Accused 1 was attempting to brainwash her, and she had lost her faculty to think. The victim also admitted that they had never asked her to recite the Kalma or observe a fast.
The accused persons claimed that the FIR had general and omnibus allegations of conversion, without specifying any date, time, or place of specific acts done to that end. Accused 1 also contended that the complainant had been harassing and following her. When on 17 January 2026, he stopped her and proposed, she and the co-accused informed his sister, the victim, and the Principal of her College. Thus, the FIR has been lodged to seek vengeance.
Accused 2 denied any connection with the offence and informed that she had been granted an interim stay of arrest.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the case diary, the Court noted that the victim was caught on a CCTV camera in an alley where she was forced to wear a burqa by Accused 1 and other co-accused persons. There was other material in the diary as well, which depicted that the investigation was still in progress. Accordingly, the Court held that the prosecution’s case and the materials collected during the investigation, prima facie, disclosed a case that was required to be thoroughly investigated.
Regarding the contention that the FIR was mala fide, the Court stated that this was not borne from the record, as there was no FIR lodged against the complainant that he was stalking or harassing Accused 1. Additionally, the victim’s statement before the Magistrate could not be thrashed as it carried all the necessary facts, which would prima facie attract the provisions of Sections 3 and 5(1), U.P. Conversion Act.
Referring to Section 3, U.P. Conversion Act, the Court stated that there could be multiple grounds where religious conversion becomes a crime, such as undue influence and allurement. Whether the alleged acts constituted allurement or undue influence was a premature question for an examination in a petition to quash the FIR.
The Court remarked, “We must be alive to the situation that U.P. Conversion Act was enacted to curtail an emergent situation in society, where certain persons go about not professing or propagating their religion, but thrusting it upon others in the belief that the religion they believe in must be followed by others.”
The Court cautioned that such a trend amongst young people was more disturbing, as this was their time to think about developing their skills in different fields of education and dedicate themselves to the service of society and the nation.
“U.P. Conversion Act was brought to curtail this emergent mischief, which is heard from different quarters in the country these days, and of which we must take judicial notice.”
The Court further added that, “A statute that is enacted to curtail an emergent mischief, if stopped in its tracks at the very early stages of its enforcement, would bog down the statute and frustrate its purpose. This does not mean that false implications under a new statute are to be encouraged, but, at the same time, the purpose for which the statute has been enacted cannot be subverted by snuffing out prosecutions brought on tangible materials at the threshold.”
Accordingly, the Court held that it was not a fit case to interdict the investigation and quash the FIR. Thus, the petitions were set aside, and the interim order was vacated.
[Aleena v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3203 of 2026, decided on 16-4-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice J.J. Munir
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioners: Shiv Shanker Mishra, Ashutosh Upadhyay
For the respondents: Chandra Vijai Singh, Additional Government Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari