Supreme Court Extends Interim Protection From Arrest To SHUATS VC, Officials In UP Police FIR Over Alleged Forceful Religious Conversion

The Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar also directed the State of UP to file a counter-affidavit within one week. The matter is listed after three weeks.

The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against an order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash an FIR lodged against the appellants accused of persuading a woman to adopt Christianity by offering her a job and other allurement.

It may be recalled that the bench led by Justice Aniruddha Bose had, in December last year, granted interim protection from arrest. Last week, the Supreme Court had quashed the criminal proceedings in a cheating case against the Principal of Bishop Johnson School and College, Prayagraj, which is under the same management.

Heated Court-Room Exchange

The Court witnessed some heated exchange between Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for appellants, and UP Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad.

The Bench referred to another similar SLP filed where Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave had appeared.

The UP AAG submitted: There are several other cases against him….They have been filling SLPs left, right, and center. They have a large number of cases. All rape cases…all types of cases…This University has become a sex symbol now…

Dave vehemently opposed this. He argued: Hon'ble Chief Justice's Bench…in a writ petition filed by us has also been pleased to issue notice on various prayers…and has further pleased to stay no coercive step...

Seemingly, Dave referred to the order passed last year in March by the Bench led by the CJI. Therein, the Court had stayed the arrest of the Vice Chancellor and Director of SHUATS in connection with a mass religious conversion case.

Factual Background

The FIR, in this case, was lodged last year in November by one Saroj Kumari, an aluminous of Allahabad University. In the FIR, the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and  Immoral Traffic (Prevention Act), 1956 have also been invoked. She had made allegations of unlawful conversion (into Christianity) against the Vice-Chancellor, Director Vinod Bihari Lal, and five other officials.

Before the High Court, the applicant contended that though the FIR was registered way back on 04.11.2023, the investigation is yet to see the final day, and the investigating officer has yet to file the report. Apart from this, it urged that the present FIR is driven by the malafides as the informant was sacked from her services. Thus, by way of retaliation, she has lodged the present FIR.

However, the High Court refused to quash the proceedings, noting that the allegations levelled in the FIR were extremely serious.

The Court, in its order, observed that no God or true Church or Temple or Mosque would approve such type of malpractices. The Court further reasoned that the case is at the pre-natal stage. Placing its reliance upon Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2021 SC 1918., the High Court noted that the court should 'shun away to thwart any investigation into the cognizable offence.'

“It is only in the cases, where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the FIR that court would not permit an investigation to go on. The powers of quashing should be exercise in the “rarest of the rare case” sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, as mentioned above in the month of November 2023, she has succeeded in lodging the FIR.,” the Court added.

In related news, the Supreme Court has recently quashed a criminal case over alleged forgery and cheating against Vinod Bihari Lal (present appellant), Director of the university.

As per the complaint, appellants (including Lal) cheated the student's parents by forging Bishop Johnson School and College (BJS) affiliation documents and using the same for the Girls' Wing of BJS. Pertinently, FIR was registered under several provisions of the IPC, including for Criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.

However, the bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna noted that none of the offences were made out, and allegations were made with a malafide intent. Accordingly, it quashed the FIR, Chargesheet, and all consequential proceedings.

Case Title: Rajendra Bihari Lal and Ors v The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., SLP(Crl) No. 16557/2023