The Supreme Court of India quashed five FIRs under the U.P. Conversion Act, ruling that only victims or close relatives, not third parties, can file complaints, emphasizing protection of personal liberty and preventing misuse of criminal law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a judgment reinforcing the protection of personal liberty and procedural fairness, the Supreme Court of India has quashed five First Information Reports (FIRs) filed under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (“U.P. Conversion Act”). The decision, delivered by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, holds far-reaching implications for the interpretation of “aggrieved persons” under the Act and the limits of police investigation in cases of alleged unlawful conversions.
Background
The case arose from a batch of six FIRs registered across Uttar Pradesh, alleging mass religious conversions, most notably an incident at the Evangelical Church of India in Fatehpur on April 14, 2022. The complaints claimed that around 90 Hindus were converted to Christianity through inducements and deception.
Among these, FIR No. 224/2022, lodged by a local Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader, became the focal point of controversy. Four subsequent FIRs, Nos. 47/2023, 54/2023, 55/2023, and 60/2023, were later registered by other complainants, many of whom appeared to have prior associations with the original informant.
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court declined to quash the FIRs, arguing that the proceedings were a misuse of criminal law and violative of due process.
Arguments Before the Court
Petitioners’ Stand:
The petitioners, represented by senior advocates Siddharth Dave and Mukta Gupta, contended that the FIRs were fundamentally flawed and motivated. Their core arguments included:
- Incompetent Complainant: The original FIR (No. 224/2022) was lodged by a third party — the Vice President of a religious organization — who was not an aggrieved person under Section 4 of the unamended U.P. Conversion Act.
- Multiple FIRs for the Same Incident: FIRs Nos. 54, 55, and 60 of 2023 were near-identical to FIR 224/2022, violating the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001), which prohibits multiple FIRs for the same occurrence.
- Mala Fide Intent and Fabricated Evidence: The petitioners pointed to “carbon-copy” witness statements, unexplained delays of over nine months, and inconsistencies where complainants changed their roles from witnesses to alleged victims.
State’s Response:
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, defended the FIRs, asserting that:
- The U.P. Conversion Act does not override general provisions of the Cr.P.C.; therefore, any person can report a cognizable offence.
- Subsequent FIRs were lodged by separate victims, each disclosing distinct offences.
- Since charge sheets had already been filed, the Court should refrain from quashing the cases at the pre-trial stage.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Findings
1. FIR by a Third Party Is Incompetent Under the Act
The Court held that the unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act expressly restricts who can file an FIR, namely, the person converted, their parents, siblings, or close relatives. The Bench emphasized that this limitation was a deliberate legislative safeguard meant to protect an individual’s autonomy in matters of faith.
“To permit the initiation of criminal proceedings at the instance of strangers or unrelated third parties would amount to an impermissible intrusion into this protected sphere of individual freedom,”
the Court observed.
Accordingly, FIR No. 224/2022 was deemed legally void and “suffering from an incurable defect.”
2. Multiple FIRs for the Same Incident Are an Abuse of Process
Applying the “test of sameness” from T.T. Antony, the Court ruled that FIRs Nos. 54, 55, and 60 of 2023 were “virtual reproductions” of each other, relating to the same alleged event of April 14, 2022. Such repetition, it held, amounted to a misuse of the criminal justice system.
“The scheme of the Cr.P.C. recognizes only the first information about a cognizable offence… there can be no second FIR and consequently no fresh investigation,”
the judgment reiterated.
3. Lack of Bona Fides and Fabricated Evidence
The Supreme Court found the investigation riddled with irregularities and “glaring infirmities.” Key red flags included:
- Identical witness statements across different FIRs, suggesting a pre-written template.
- An affidavit mix-up where one victim’s statement contained another person’s details.
- Complainants who initially described themselves as VHP members later reappeared as victims, an “inexplicable reversal” pointing to fabrication.
The Court concluded that the pattern of complaints appeared engineered to cure the legal defect in the original FIR filed by an incompetent complainant.
In its final order, the Supreme Court:
- Quashed FIRs Nos. 224/2022, 47/2023, 54/2023, 55/2023, and 60/2023, along with all related proceedings.
- In FIR No. 538/2023 (Prayagraj), the Court quashed the charges under the U.P. Conversion Act but allowed further hearing on non-religious offences under the IPC.
The Bench stated that continuing the prosecution would be a “travesty of justice”, warning against the misuse of criminal law as a “tool of harassment.”
Case Title:
RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 123 OF 2023
READ JUDGMENT
