FIR on Unlawful Conversion Can Only Be Lodged by Aggrieved Person or Kin, Not Strangers: Supreme Court Quashes Multiple FIRs

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has quashed five First Information Reports (FIRs) filed under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, holding that an FIR for an alleged offence of unlawful conversion under the unamended law could only be lodged by the aggrieved person, their parents, siblings, or relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra found that FIRs lodged by third parties were legally incompetent and that subsequent, near-identical FIRs concerning the same incident were an abuse of the legal process.

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings after observing “glaring infirmities,” “cyclostyled witness statements across different FIRs,” and a “severe lack of bona fides” in the investigation.

Background of the Case

The judgment dealt with a batch of petitions challenging six FIRs filed in Uttar Pradesh, primarily concerning allegations of mass religious conversion.

1. FIR No. 224/2022: Registered on April 15, 2022, at PS Kotwali, Fatehpur. It was lodged by Himanshu Dixit, the Vice President of Vishwa Hindu Parishad. He alleged that on April 14, 2022, a mass conversion event of about 90 Hindus was taking place at the Evangelical Church of India in Hariharganj, Fatehpur, through “deceit and fraud.”
2. FIR No. 47/2023: Registered on January 20, 2023, alleging an incident from December 25, 2021. The complainant, Sarvendra Vikram Singh, claimed he was allured with cash, a job, and marriage to convert to Christianity but later returned to Hinduism.
3. FIRs No. 54/2023, 55/2023, and 60/2023: Registered on January 23 and 24, 2023. These were filed by three different individuals—Virendra Kumar, Sanjay Singh, and Satyapal—all claiming to be victims of the alleged mass conversion event of April 14, 2022. The court noted these FIRs were “virtual reproductions of each other.”
4. FIR No. 538/2023: Registered on December 11, 2023, in Prayagraj, alleging attempted murder, extortion, and unlawful conversion activities against a different set of accused.

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed their petitions seeking to quash the FIRs.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Submissions: The petitioners, represented by senior advocates including Mr. Siddharth Dave and Ms. Mukta Gupta, argued that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of law.

• They contended that FIR No. 224/2022 was legally invalid because the complainant was not a person competent to lodge an FIR under the unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act.
• It was argued that FIRs No. 54/2023, 55/2023, and 60/2023 were impermissible “second FIRs” for the same incident, violating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala.
• The counsels highlighted the “inordinate delay” of over nine months in the registration of the subsequent FIRs, suggesting a mala fide attempt to overcome the legal defect in the first FIR.
• They pointed to glaring contradictions, such as complainants in FIRs 54/2023 and 55/2023 initially giving police statements as witnesses accompanying the VHP leader, only to later file FIRs as victims.

State’s Submissions: Shri R. Venkataramani, the learned Attorney General for India, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, defended the registration of the FIRs.

• He argued that the unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act was “not in derogation of the general provisions of law,” and the police were duty-bound under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to register an FIR upon receiving information of a cognizable offence from any source.
• The Attorney General submitted that the subsequent FIRs were lodged by different victims of illegal conversion and thus constituted distinct offences.
• He asserted that since chargesheets had been filed, the Court should not quash the proceedings, as the materials collected disclosed the commission of grave offences that “put the social order and security in jeopardy.”

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Supreme Court conducted a detailed analysis of the law and the facts presented in the chargesheets and case diaries before arriving at its conclusion.

On the Legality of FIR No. 224/2022: The Court held that the unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act created an “express legal bar” to the institution of proceedings by an unrelated third party. The bench observed that the legislative intent was to restrict who could initiate prosecution, recognizing that religious belief is an “inherently personal and private aspect of an individual’s identity.”

The judgment stated, “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 and would open the door to frivolous or motivated litigations.”

The Court concluded that since the complainant in FIR No. 224/2022 was not an aggrieved person or a specified relative, the FIR “suffers from an incurable legal defect” and was liable to be quashed.

On Multiple FIRs for the Same Incident: Applying the “test of sameness” established in T.T. Antony, the Court found that FIRs No. 55/2023 and 60/2023 were impermissible as they were “virtual reproductions” of FIR No. 54/2023 and pertained to the same alleged incident of mass conversion on April 14, 2022.

The Court observed, “The scheme of the Cr.P.C. only recognizes the first information about a cognizable offence… there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident.”

On the Bona Fides of the Investigation: The Court expressed deep skepticism about the investigation, noting severe discrepancies in the evidence. It highlighted:

• Affidavits and Section 161 statements of different witnesses were “virtually identical,” suggesting they were reproduced from a “pre-decided prototype.”
• An affidavit sworn by one victim, Sanjay Singh, mistakenly contained details of another victim, Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, which the court found to be a “glaring error.”
• The complainants in FIRs 54/2023 and 55/2023 had given prior statements to the police in which they identified themselves as associates of the VHP leader who were present as whistleblowers, not as victims. The Court noted this “complete U-turn” made it an “easy guess as regards the circumstances in which multiple subsequent FIRs came to be registered.”

The Court concluded that these factors compelled it “to read in between the lines” and found that the subsequent FIRs were lodged to “overcome the infirmity which existed in FIR No. 224/2022.”

Conclusion: Based on its findings, the Supreme Court issued the following orders:

1. FIRs No. 224/2022, 47/2023, 54/2023, 55/2023, and 60/2023, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed.
2. Regarding FIR No. 538/2023, the charges under the U.P. Conversion Act were quashed due to the incompetent complainant. However, the matter was de-tagged for further hearing on the limited aspect of offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The bench concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would “result in a travesty of justice” and that the “criminal law cannot be allowed to be made a tool of harassment of innocent persons.”