Unlawful Religious Conversion A Serious Offence; Court Can’t Quash Case Based On Settlement Between Parties: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court remarked that in case of a religious conversion, there should be a change of heart and honest conviction in the tenets of new religion in lieu of tenets of the original religion.
The Allahabad High Court observed that an unlawful religious conversion when achieved through coercion is a serious offence in which the Court cannot quash the proceedings based on the settlement between the parties.
The Court observed thus in an Application filed by an accused seeking to quash the chargesheet and the entire proceedings against him under Sections 420, 323, 376, and 344 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020.
A Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held, “… it is clear that unlawful religious conversion, particularly when achieved through coercion, fraud, or undue influence, is considered a serious offence, in which the Court cannot quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement between the parties.”
The Bench remarked that in case of a religion conversion, there should be a change of heart and honest conviction in the tenets of new religion in lieu of tenets of the original religion.
Advocate Ved Prakash Mishra appeared on behalf of the Applicant while Advocates Vijai Kumar Tiwari and Pramod Kumar Singh appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
Facts of the Case
An FIR was lodged in 2021 by the Opposite Party i.e., a woman against three persons with the allegations that she became friendly with a man namely Rahul Kumar through Facebook. The said man took her mobile number and repeatedly used to call her. After nearly one year of chatting through Facebook, the alleged accused proposed to marry her. Allegedly, she gave her consent of marriage and on his request, she reached Rampur from where she was taken to Nawabnagar. She was allegedly detained to his house till six months and during the period of stay, she came to know that the said man was a Muslim boy. Therefore, she said that it is not possible for her to marry him as her religion is Hindu.
On her refusal to marry, the victim was allegedly beaten by him i.e., Mohd. Ayan (actual name) and without her consent, he forcefully established physical relations with her. It was further alleged that she was illegally detained for six months and was sexually assaulted by him. He also allegedly called his two friends, who forcefully committed rape upon her. The victim managed to run away from there and lodge the FIR. She also disclosed that Rahul @ Mohd. Ayan exploited a number of girls by trapping them by becoming friendly through Facebook. The Applicant was one of the accused persons who allegedly committed rape on her. She came to know about money being given by Madarsa for exploiting Hindu girls, which was disclosed by him to her. The counsel for the Applicant submitted that the parties have entered into compromise.
Reasoning
The High Court in after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “A compromise entered into between the parties cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which lesser punishment can be awarded. Rape is a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. Since the Court cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim in compromising the case is a genuine consent, there is every chance that she might have been pressurized by the convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the years might have compelled her to opt for a compromise.”
The Bench held that a conversion of religion by an individual to Islam can be said to be bona fide if he/she is major and of sound mind and embraces Islam by his/her own freewill and because of his/her faith and belief in the oneness of God (Allah) and prophetic character of Mahommed.
“If a conversion is not inspired by religion feeling and under gone for its own sake, but is resorted merely with object of creating a ground for some claim of right or as a device adopted for the purpose to avoid marriage or to achieve an object without faith and belief in the unity of God (Allah) and Mahommed to be his prophet, the conversion shall not be bonafide”, it observed.
The Court further reiterated that in respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.
“Any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to such offences, cannot provide for any basis for quashing the criminal proceedings. The inherent power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society”, it added.
The Court said that the decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
“The offences under Sections 376 and 392 IPC fall in the category of serious and heinous offences. They are treated as crime against the society and not against individual alone and therefore, the criminal proceeding for the offences under these sections having a serious impact on the society, cannot be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute among themselves through compromise/settlement”, it also noted.
Moreover, the Court remarked that any compromise or settlement with respect to the offence of rape, against the honour of a woman, which shakes the very core of her life and tantamounts to a serious blow to her supreme honour, offending both, her esteem and dignity, is not acceptable to the Court.
“Conversion to another religion basically requires change of faith and belief of personal relations of a major individual of sound mind by his free will, with what he/she regards as Cosmos, his/her Maker or Creator, which he/she believes, regulates the existence of insentients beings and the forces of Universe”, it observed.
The Court was of the view that the faith and belief in the unity of God and Mahommed to be his/her Prophet is the foundation to call a person of another religion that he embraced Islam and that conversion to Islam makes the Muslim personal law applicable to such a person.
“The object of Act, 2020 is to provide for prohibition of unlawful conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application and refuse to quash the proceedings against the accused.
Cause Title- Taufik Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:4407)
