While noting that the material collected during the course of investigation prima facie disclosed the involvement of the accused persons allegedly providing the equipment used for advertising the alleged inducement for religious conversion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld an order whereby charges were framed against the accused persons under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The High Court was considering a criminal revision preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order whereby charges had been framed against the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Single Bench of Justice Gajendra Singh stated, “Further, the averments contained in the complaint dated 20.06.2025, if taken at its face value, prima facie fall within the ambit of "allurement" as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act of 2021. The material collected during the course of investigation also prima facie discloses the involvement of the revision petitioners, Rai Singh as they are alleged to have provided the equipments used for advertising the alleged inducement for religious conversion.”

Advocate Lokesh Mehta represented the Petitioners while Government Advocate Jai Gopal Chouksey represented the State.

Factual Background

A written complaint was lodged by one Gajraj Singh before the In-Charge, Police Station Sonkatch, that a meeting was organised at the house of Bhaggu Jiaji, and it was alleged in the complaint that certain persons were inducing the villagers to convert their religion by assuring them that those persons who follow Christianity would be provided free medical treatment, good education and a sum of Rs 50,000.

On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered against the accused persons for allegedly persuading the villagers to convert their religion. Apart from that, five persons against whom the FIR was lodged involving Rai Singh was also disclosed, and it was found that accused "M" and "S" were below 18 years of age. Accordingly, proceedings against the said juvenile were submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against Manju, Kiran, Jagram, Rai Singh and Mithun for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.

Reasoning

Referring to section 227 of the CrPC or presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023, the Bench explained that while invoking the power under section 227, the Judge concerned has to consider only the record of the case and the documents produced along with the same. “If on such consideration, the Court formed an opinion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused concerned, he shall be discharged after recording the reasons therefor. It is also evident from the precedence on the aforesaid question that while exercising the said power, the Court could sift the materials produced along with the final report only for the purpose of considering the question whether there is ground to proceed against the accused concerned”, it added.

The Bench further clarified, “The further limitation that at the stage of framing of charge or considering the discharge application, the impermissibility of mini trial as laid down in State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021)....”

The Bench rejected the contention regarding non-compliance with Section 4 of the Act of 2021 after noting that the complainant himself was present at the meeting wherein the participants were allegedly induced and allured to convert their religion.

Holding that the averments contained in the complaint prima facie fell within the ambit of "allurement" as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act of 2021, the Bench dismissed the revision petition.

Cause Title: Jagram and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:16889)

Click here to read/download Order


Madhya Pradesh HCJustice Gajendra Singh

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.