Fatehpur Mass Religious Conversion Case: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against 37 Accused

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against 37 persons accusing them of coerced the first informant into religious conversion (Hinduism to Christianity) by inducements.

While doing so, the Court rejected the argument of the counsel for the accused persons that the instant FIR (filed by an aggrieved person as per the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act) be quashed since there is already an FIR pending related to the same case.

The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gajendra Kumar noted that since the first FIR had not been registered by a competent person, the second FIR, though related to the same incident, cannot be quashed as it has been lodged by a competent person.

To give our readers a background of the case, the first FIR in the case was registered on April 15, 2022, by an office bearer of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad accusing certain accused (who have been named as accused in the second FIR as well) of luring 90 Hindus to convert to Christianity by putting them under undue influence, coercion by playing fraud, and promise of easy money, etc.

Read more details of the case/First FIR here

Now, earlier this year, another FIR (the impugned FIR) was registered (now by a person who was himself coerced to convert his religion) pertaining to the same incident. Challenging this very FIR, lodged for alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506, 120-B IPC & Section 3/5 (1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, the accused persons moved to the High Court.

It was their argument that since an FIR pertaining to the said incident is already filed, the second FIR (the impugned FIR) be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala, 2001, Vol. 6 SCC 181 (wherein it was held that there can be no second FIR on the same cause of action).

However, the state opposed this argument of the accused persons by arguing that the impugned FIR would not be hit by the ratio in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) as the content of both the FIRs are different.

Significantly, it was also argued that the impugned FIR had been lodged by the victim himself and only any aggrieved person, his/ her parents, brother, sister, or any other person, who is related to him/ her by blood or marriage, is competent to lodge the first information report where an offence under Section 3 of the UP 'Anti Conversion' Act is alleged.

Against this backdrop of arguments, the Court noted that In so far as the material allegations in the first information report are concerned, they pertain to the same mass conversion ceremony of the same date and therefore, there is no substantial difference in so far as the allegations in the two first information reports are concerned.

However, the Court further added, the embargo under Section 4 as to who can lodge a first information report regarding an offence under Section 3 of the Act is absolute.

"The impugned first information report has been lodged by the person, who claims to be a victim of conversion obtained by mis-representation, coercion and allurement and as per Section 4(e) is the person competent to lodge the first information report. Section 5(1), which has also been invoked only provides the punishment for an offence under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, it has to be held that the first information report impugned in the instant writ petition is by a competent person and contains ingredients of a cognizable offence," the Court added.

Further, explaining the scope of the words "any aggrieved person" (as appearing under Section 4 of the UP Act), the Court noted any aggrieved person would be a person who is personally aggrieved by his or her fraudulent conversion be it an individual or in a mass conversion ceremony.

Under the said circumstances, the Court ruled that the FIR (lodged by the office bearer of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad last year) was not lodged by a competent person, however, the court added, that it was of no consequence.

"For the same reason, the impugned first information report cannot be called a second first information report. It, therefore, cannot be said that there are two separate first information reports of the same incident. The case at hand therefore, is not covered by the ratio in K.K. Anthony (supra)," the Court remarked as it found no grounds to quash the impugned FIR.

Appearances

Counsel For Applicants: Sr. Advocate Dilip Kumar, Sagar Mehrotra

Counsel for Respondent: Manish Goel, Additional Advocate General

Case title - Jose Prakash George And 36 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1814 of 2023] 

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 68

Click Here To Read/Download Order