MP HC Refuses To Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Man Accused Of 'Induced Religious Conversion' [Read Order]

The Madhya Pradesh has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of induced religious conversion even after the complainant stated that he has no objection for the same.

George Mangalapilly  was charged under Section 153-B(1) and 295-A of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3/4 of the M.P. Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 [MP Religion Freedom Act] on the basis of complaint filed by one Dharmendra Dohar. The FIR stated that some preachers of Christian community were alluring and inspiring the complainant by providing money to cause him to convert into their religion. However, in the Section 164 CrPC statement, the  complainant stated that people from the 'Bajranag Dal' caused him to sign a paper forcefully and he was not aware of the content of the paper. Later, the Judicial Magistrate framed charges against him.

George approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him.  The court observed that, in absence of proper sanction in respect of offence under section 153-B(1) and 295-A of IPC, the JMFC has exceeded its jurisdiction while taking cognizance in the case under Section 153-B(1) and 295-A of IPC. Therefore, the court quashed criminal proceeding in respect of the said offences.

The court further observed that as far as offence under Section 3/4 of Adhiniyam, 1968 is concerned, the prosecution has obtained mandatory sanction from District Magistrate Satna. Section 3 of Adhiniyam, 1968 restricts the person to convert or attempt to convert any person from one religious to another directly or indirectly religious by way of allurement or force. It also noticed that the complainant in the FIR had stated that the accused was alluring him to cause him to convert into their religion and the complainant along with his friend converted themselves into their religion. Refusing to quash the criminal proceedings, Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava  said:

"Complainant Dharmendra Dohar has no objection in quashing the proceeding but looking to the fact that the offence is relating to religion and significant to maintain public tranquility, the Adhiniyam, 1968 clearly provides for the maintenance of public order, hence, under inherent jurisdiction, I do not think fit to give it overemphasized. Therefore, considering the allegations made in the FIR as well as 161 Statements, I am not inclined to quash the proceeding in respect of offence under Section 3/4 of Adhiniyam, 1968."

Case name: George Mangalapilly vs. State of MP

Case no.: M.Cr.C No.20085/2020

Coram: Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava

Counsel: Advocates M.J. Michael, Naresh Kumar Patel, Ajay Tamrakar

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Order