The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR that alleged kidnapping, coercion and religious conversion, holding that the case was entirely false once the alleged victim gave a clear statement denying the accusations.

The Court ruled that State authorities continued prosecution merely to “score brownie points”, even though there was no offence under Section 140(1) BNSS or under the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The High Court was hearing a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 140(1), 316(2), 317(2) BNSS and under Section 3(1)(5) of the 2021 Conversion Act. The petitioner also remained in custody for nearly six weeks despite the victim’s testimony exonerating him.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani, while stating that “this petition is a glaring example of the State Authorities falling and scrambling over each other in order to score brownie points on the basis of the FIR”, held that “the aforesaid FIR has been lodged in a vexatious manner by the respondent No.4 and the authorities.”

The Bench further observed that, “despite having the statement of respondent…, the authorities have failed to exercise the power as vested in them under Section 189 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and have failed to take corrective action with regard to the petitioner… who, despite a lapse of almost one and a half months from the statement…, continues to languish in jail”.

Advocate Sheikh Mohammad Ali appeared for the petitioners, while Dr V.K. Singh, Government Advocate, represented the respondents.

Background

An FIR was lodged alleging that the victim had been forcibly taken away, given shelter and induced into religious conversion by the petitioners, who were further described in the FIR as members of a conversion gang. Jewellery and valuables were also alleged to have been taken.

The victim returned voluntarily, and her first statement was recorded, followed by a statement under Section 180 BNSS. Subsequently, the police inserted additional offences, including Section 3(1)(5) of the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The petitioner was arrested.

However, the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS completely contradicted the FIR. She stated that she left home voluntarily due to domestic disputes, denied any forced religious conversion, and stated that the jewellery in question was her ‘stridhan’, which she handed over to the police. Despite this, no corrective action was taken, and the petitioner continued to remain in custody.

Court’s Observation

The Allahabad High Court, at the outset, noted that every allegation of coercion and religious conversion stood disproved by the victim's own testimony. The Bench recorded that she had left home of her own accord, was not induced or forced by anyone, and had not been coerced. Her jewellery was part of her personal belongings, and there was no element of criminal breach of trust.

The Court, upon examining the record, held that the police were required to proceed under Section 189 BNSS (corresponding to Section 169 CrPC) once the investigation revealed that no offence under Section 140 BNSS or under the Conversion Act existed. Instead, the petitioner was kept in jail without justification.

The Court found a violation of Supreme Court guidelines on arrest in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, observing that the arrest was made without compliance with mandatory safeguards.

Relying on Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. (2025), the Bench reiterated that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS must be exercised to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. The judgment quoted the principle that courts may “read between the lines” when FIRs are registered with mala fide intent.

The Court also invoked the reasoning from Rini Johar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court directed compensation for illegal detention and violation of personal liberty. Drawing a parallel, the Bench noted that the petitioner suffered incarceration for no fault of his, even after the alleged victim expressly disowned the conversion allegation.

Stating that the case was pursued only to create an impression of action against alleged conversion, the Court held that the prosecution was a misuse of criminal law and the petitioner’s liberty had been unlawfully curtailed.

Conclusion

Quashing the FIR and all proceedings arising from it, the Court imposed costs of ₹75,000 on the State of Uttar Pradesh. It directed ₹50,000 to be paid to Petitioner No.1 within four weeks, and ₹25,000 to be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Services.

The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioners were granted liberty to pursue action against erring officials.

Cause Title: Umed @ Ubaid Kha and Others v. State of U.P. Through Secretary Home and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:67574-DB)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocate Sheikh Mohammad Ali

Respondents: Dr V.K. Singh, Government Advocate, assisted by AGA G.D. Bhatt, AGA, Advocate Pawan Kumar Mishra, Advocate Ramesh Gupta

Click here to read/download Judgment


Allahabad High CourtJustice Abdul MoinJustice Babita Rani

Muhib Makhdoomi

    Assistant Editor

    Muhib Makhdoomi is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum. A law graduate with a background in media and research, he covers the Supreme Court and key High Courts.