FACTS
In this case, multiple FIRs were lodged in Uttar Pradesh. The first FIR (FIR No. 224/2022) alleged mass conversion of 90 persons at a Maundy Thursday event in the Evangelical Church of India. It was filed by the Vice-President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (a third party, not an alleged convert). After this, several FIRs were filed based on similar allegations of unlawful conversion by way of gifts, clothing, job offers, or marriage into Christianity. One instance was that of Sarvendra Vikram Singh, who alleged that during this visit to the district for personal work, he was lured into embracing Christianity by the accused persons. There were also allegations of threats and firing in FIR No. 47/2023. The FIRs made accusations against more than 50 individuals, some of whom were identified by name. FIR Nos. 54, 55, and 60, respectively, were lodged at the instance of the first informants who claim to be the victims of the alleged conversion. Whereas FIR No. 224/2022 came to be lodged at the instance of a person who was not a victim of the said conversion, but was rather the leader of an organisation.
The SHUATS officials challenged these FIRs, contending that they were frivolous, that witnesses were mechanically produced, and that there was a lack of proof to show any unlawful conversion.
ISSUES
Whether the FIR No. 224/2022 is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was made by a person not falling within one of the categories specified in unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act?
Whether FIR Nos. 55/2023 and 60/2023 could be said to be covered by the decision in T.T.Antony and thus are liable to be quashed?
Whether the High Court commit any error in declining to quash the FIR?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 3(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act prohibits the conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion or allurement.
Section 4 of the Act specifies the categories of persons who are competent to lodge a First Information Report pertaining to the contravention of the provisions of the U.P. Conversion Act.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONERS
The Petitioner argued that the FIR fails to disclose any cognizable offence. The petitioners were not named in the first FIR, and their presence was not alleged at the place of the incident. The offences under Sections 153A, 506, and 120-B of the IPC cannot be made out as the petitioners were not present, and there is no evidence to establish a conspiracy.
Multiple FIRS were lodged for the same incident, that is, conversion. Since the incident is the same, multiple FIRs are liable to be quashed as laid down in T.T.Antony case. FIR No. 47/2023 pertains to the same incident but was lodged after a long delay. Hence, it is liable to be quashed following the principle laid down in Mohammad Wajid & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [Mohammad Wajid & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2023) SCC Online SC 951]
Section 4 of the unamended U.P. Conversion Act mandates that only the specified classes of people can file an FIR under the Act. Due to this, FIR No. 224/2022 is to be quashed as the person is a third party. The scope of “any aggrieved person” is restricted.
DEFENDANT (STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH)
The Respondent argued that the subject matter of the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, as around 90 persons belonging to the Hindu religion were converted en masse to Christianity by use of fraud, cheating, force, and coercion. The incident laid down in the FIR contravenes Section 3(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act and is punishable under Section 5 of the Act. The FIRs do not suffer from any infirmity as the offence is made out.
Unamended section 4 of the Act will not prevail over the general criminal law that allows the investigation of an offence by any credible information from any source. It was argued that Section 4 was to recognise the special locus of a certain class of people, and it is not restrictive.
ANALYSIS
On the power of the Court to quash an FIR under Article 32: The Court highlighted that it has been conferred with the power to provide remedies against the violation of fundamental rights. If there is a violation of the fundamental right that requires urgent intervention, the Court can intervene to secure justice. To ensure justice to the accused, there is no bar on the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32. [Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2013) 6 SCC 348]
On multiple FIRs on the same incident: The Court noted that there is no such thing as “second FIR” in the criminal law of India. If there is another FIR on the same incident, it is perceived as an abuse of investigative powers and casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. It was held by the Court that any information furnished to the officer in charge of a police station after the investigation has begun would amount to a statement covered under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. It cannot be treated as a second FIR as it is impossible in law. [T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala is (2001) 6 SCC 181]
On FIR under UP Conversion Act- Section 4 of the Act permitted only a victim or their family to file a complaint in case of unlawful conversion. On this point, the Court held that the first FIR was unsustainable because it was filed by a third party (VP of Vishwa Hindu Parishad), and not the victim or their relative. The Act barred any third party from doing so. The Attorney General of India, R Venkataramani, argued that the general CrPC would prevail over this Act. The Court rejected this argument and held that special laws prevail over the general law. [Jose Papachen & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) SCC OnLine All 804]
On Infirmities in Investigation- The Court found various defects in the investigation process, which created a question over the credibility of the evidence. It was found that witness statements across FIRs were identical, cyclostyled as they duplicated typographical errors, and names were repeated. It was also found that no witnesses were converted or present at the scene of the incident. The evidence produced showed the incident entailed a religious gathering and Bible preaching. Nothing on record showed inducement. There was an instance where the complainant had taken a U-turn from the statement he made during the investigation. Due to this, the Court decided to quash the FIRs.
JUDGMENT
Following the above reasoning, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR No. 224/2022 as it suffers from a legal defect. A third party has no locus standi to file an FIR against unlawful conversion. Multiple FIRs on the same incident were also quashed following the principle laid in the T.T. Antony case.
CONCLUSION
In the present case, the Supreme Court clarifies the scope of conversion laws by affirming that it does not extend to religious gatherings or charitable work in the name of religion per se. It required more than a mere gathering to constitute an offence under conversion laws. The viewpoint adopted by the Court is well-balanced to ensure the exercise of one’s rights under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Click here to read more: RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: FARZEEN ZAMAN
