Allahabad High Court refused to quash the case against two Class 12 Muslim girls accused of attempting to convert their Hindu classmate. The Bench said forced religious conversion allegations among youngsters were “particularly disturbing” and required judicial consideration.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, has heard two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petitions filed to challenge an FIR registered under Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The petitions registered as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3203 of 2026 and Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4128 of 2026 originate from the same FIR lodged at Bilari Police Station in Moradabad.
The High Court declined to dismiss a criminal case involving two Class XII Muslim students accused of pressuring a Hindu student to adopt Islamic religious beliefs and allegedly attempting to convert her.
The Court remarked,
“If this kind of a trend comes to be seen amongst young people, it is all the more disturbing. This is time in their lives when they should be thinking more towards developing their skills in different fields of education and dedicate themselves in the service of the society and the nation,”
The informant stated that his sister, a Class XII student attending tuition classes at Shahukunj Colony in Moradabad, was being forced by a group of Muslim girls to wear a burqa and accept Islam.
He named Aleena alias Aleena Parveen, along with four others Malishka, Shabiya, Riyasha, and Jauhara.
He also mentioned that he suspected a “deep conspiracy” behind the alleged act.
The FIR was lodged on 22 January 2026 at 11:30 a.m.
Initially, both petitioners, Aleena alias Aleena Parveen and Shabiya, had jointly filed the first writ petition. But when the case first came up before another Bench, Aleena withdrew her petition, while Shabiya continued. She also got an interim stay on arrest.
Later, the second writ petition (No. 4128/2026), filed by another accused student, was tagged with the first matter.
When the case came before Justice Munir and Justice Saxena, the Court examined the FIR as well as the victim’s detailed statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Court also noted that if the 2021 anti-conversion law were halted at the outset of its implementation, it could undermine the statute and defeat its intended objective. At the same time, it warned that the law should not be misused to implicate people without basis.
The Bench said,
“This does not mean that false implications under a new statute are to be encouraged, but, at the same time, the purpose, for which the statute has been enacted, cannot be subverted by snuffing out prosecutions brought on tangible materials at the threshold,”
The Court noted from the Case Diary that CCTV footage from an alley showed the victim being forced to wear the burqa by the accused girls. This corroborated parts of her statement.
After reviewing the FIR, the Case Diary, and the victim’s statements, the Bench considered whether the petitions should be admitted and whether interim protection should be granted.
The detailed judgment continues beyond the part included in your uploaded document, but the portion available shows that the Court treated the victim’s consistent statements and CCTV evidence as significant in deciding whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie case.
After examining all the circumstances, the Court concluded that this was not a fit case to interfere with the investigation or quash the FIR. As a result, both writ petitions were dismissed and the interim protection earlier granted to one of the petitioners on 12 February 2026 was vacated.
The Court directed that the order be sent to the Principal Secretary (Home) of Uttar Pradesh and also to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, and the Station House Officer of Bilari Police Station for appropriate action.
Advocates Shiv Shanker Mishra and Ashutosh Upadhyay represented the petitioners.
Advocate Chandra Vijai Singh appeared for the complainant.
Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari represented the State.
Case Title: Aleena alias Aleena Parveen and another v State of UP and Others