While dismissing a petition seeking the quashing of a case registered against a man accused of carrying religious coversions by alluring poor people, the Allahabad High Court has asked the District Magistrates of the State to look into illegal caste-based conversions merely for availing reservation.

The application before the High Court was filed to quash the proceeding including the impugned Charge Sheet as well as cognizance/summoning Order passed in a case registered under Sections 153-A, 295-A of the IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri ordered, “All the District Magistrates of State of U.P. are directed to act in accordance with law within four months and communicate to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. and other Principal/Additional Chief Secretary, so that such fraud on Constitution may not occur as per observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of C. Selvarani (supra).”

In C. Selvarani v. Special Secretary-cum-District Collector and Others (2024), the Supreme Court held that upon conversion to Christianity, an individual ceases to belong to their original caste. The Court had further observed therein that claiming caste-based benefits merely for the purpose of availing reservation after such conversion amounts to a “fraud on the Constitution.”

Advocate Patsy David represented the Applicant while Government Advocate represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj has passed an order mentioning therein that the applicant had installed a tent at Baluahi Dhus Chauraha i.e. public place, where he used to organize prayer meeting of Jesus Christ amongst large number of people and tried to convince them about accepting christianity. As per the order, because of such acts there was a breach of law and order. Thereafter an FIR was lodged against the applicant under section 153-A, 295-A of the IPC.

Arguments

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after conducting an investigation, a charge sheet had been submitted under the same sections, whereas the witnesses had not supported the prosecution's version as contained in the FIR.

It was the case of the Respondent that some witnesses supported the version of the FIR, and one of them also made an allegation that the petitioner, by alluring poor people, wanted to convert the persons of the Hindu religion to Christians.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained, “It is an admitted fact that statement of a witness recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is not an evidence and such statement is only for contradicting or corroborating the statement of a witness recorded on oath as examination-in-chief and cross-examination at the stage of trial. It is also settled law that this Court cannot conduct trial and the same can only be done by the trial court.”

The Bench found that the petition lacked merit and thus dismissed the same. The Bench also clarified that it would be open to the applicant to move a discharge application before the trial court, raising all his grievances.

The Bench took note of the submission of the A.G.A. that, as per the statement of one of the witnesses, the applicant, who belonged to the Hindu community, had accepted Christianity and held the post of Padri (Priest), whereas, in the affidavit filed in support of this application, he mentioned his religion as Hindu. The Bench thus directed the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, to enquire into the matter regarding the religion of the applicant and if he is found guilty of forgery, take strict action against him in accordance with law so that such affidavits may not be filed before this Court in future.

The Bench also made a reference to the relevant provisions of the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950, under which it has been held that no person who belongs to a community other than Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist shall be deemed to be a member of the scheduled caste. “Apart from above, Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. are directed to look into the matter of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes as well as the provisions of law and act in accordance with law, as mentioned above”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Jitendra Sahani v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:208671)

Appearance

Applicant: Advocates Patsy David, Vandana Henry

Respondent: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order






Allahabad High CourtJustice Praveen Kumar Giri

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.