Allahabad High Court Declines To Quash FIR Against Class XII Girl Students For Alleged Attempted Religious Conversion
The Court held that where the victim’s statements and material collected during the investigation prima facie disclose elements of undue influence or allurement, proceedings under the 2021 Act cannot be interdicted at the threshold.
Justice J.J. Munir, Justice Tarun Saxena, Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court declined to quash an FIR registered against Class XII girl students under Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, holding that the material on record prima facie disclosed a case warranting investigation.
The Court observed that where tangible material exists, prosecutions under a statute enacted to address an emergent social concern ought not to be stifled at the threshold.
The Court was hearing criminal writ petitions seeking quashing of an FIR alleging that a Class XII student was compelled by her classmates to wear a burqa and was subjected to inducement to adopt another religion.
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena observed: “ We must be alive to the situation that the Act of 2021 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 which somehow makes it to their mind the religion they believe in must be followed by others. If this kind of trend comes to be seen amongst young people, it is all the more disturbing”.
The Act of 2021, the Court noted, “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”.
“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”, the Bench added.
Advocate Shiv Shanker Mishra appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Chandra Vijai Singh and Additional Government Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari appeared for the respondents.
Background
The FIR was lodged by the brother of the victim, a Class XII student, alleging that certain classmates had attempted to influence and compel his sister to adopt another religion. It was alleged that the accused girls, who were her classmates at tuition, allured her, compelled her to wear a burqa, and attempted to persuade her to convert.
The petitioners contended that the FIR was based on vague and omnibus allegations without any specific details as to date, time, or overt acts. It was further argued that the complaint was motivated and lodged with mala fide intent, particularly in light of an alleged prior incident involving personal grievance between the parties.
The petitioners also emphasised that they were young students and that the pendency of criminal proceedings was causing serious disruption to their education and mental well-being.
Court’s Observation
The Court perused the case diary, including statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and found that the allegations were not merely vague but supported by specific assertions.
The Court noted that the victim had stated that she was compelled to wear a burqa against her will, was taken to a restaurant by the accused, and was repeatedly told to adopt their religion. It was also stated that she was discouraged from informing her parents and that efforts were made to influence her beliefs.
The Court further noted the presence of corroborative material in the form of CCTV footage, which prima facie supported the version that the victim was forced to wear a veil.
Rejecting the contention of mala fides, the Court observed that no prior complaint had been lodged to substantiate the petitioners’ version of alleged harassment by the complainant, and that the victim’s statement before the Magistrate could not be lightly disregarded.
The Court emphasised that whether the acts alleged would ultimately constitute “allurement” or “undue influence” under the Act of 2021 is a matter to be examined during investigation and, if necessary, trial, and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of quashing.
The Court concluded that “whether the petitioners’ acts constitute allurement or undue influence are questions premature to be examined in a petition to quash the FIR.”
Conclusion
The Court held that in view of the material available on record, it was not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction to quash the FIR or interdict the investigation at the threshold.
Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim protection granted to one of the petitioners was vacated.
Cause Title: Aleena @ Aleena Parveen & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:83206-DB)