The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash an FIR against two Class 12 students accused under the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law for allegedly attempting to convert a classmate in Moradabad, observing that this kind of a trend among young people is “all the more disturbing”. It also vacated the stay on the arrest of one of the girls, which had been granted by another division bench in February.
The case dates back to January when five Muslim girls were booked after the sole Hindu girl in their group of six alleged she was pressured by the others to wear a burqa while they were returning from tuition classes.
The matter had come to light after a purported video of the incident surfaced on social media. After a complaint by the Hindu girl’s brother, police registered a case against the five students. Barring one girl who is 20, the rest are between the ages of 16 and 18 and minors.
In the current case, the division bench of Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena observed in its order on Thursday, “We must be alive to the situation that the Act of 2021 [The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act] was enacted to curtail an emergent situation in society, where certain persons go about not professing or propagating their religion but thrusting it upon others in the belief, which somehow makes it to their mind, that the religion they believe in must be followed by others.”
“If this kind of a trend comes to be seen amongst young people, it is all the more disturbing. This is the time in their lives when they should be thinking more towards developing their skills in different fields of education and dedicate themselves in service of society and the nation,” the bench observed.
The bench further observed that the 2021 Act was brought to “curtail this emergent mischief, which is heard from different quarters in the country these days, and of which we must take judicial notice. A statute that is enacted to curtail an emergent mischief, if stopped in its tracks at the very early stages of its enforcement would bog down the statute and frustrate its purpose”.
“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,” it observed.
Story continues below this ad
The two girls sought to quash the FIR lodged on January 22 under sections 3 and 5(1) of anti-conversion Act. Both sections prohibit religious conversion or attempt to convert through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraud or marriage.
According to the order, the petition was first heard by a division bench of Justices Rajiv Gupta and Achal Sachdev. One of the petitioners then withdrew the petition. That division bench had then granted a stay on the arrest of the other girl in its February 12 order.
The petition came up before the division bench of Justices Munir and Saxena on March 30.
‘Claims concocted to seek revenge’: Defence
According to the FIR, the complainant said his sister used to go for private tuition classes in Moradabad city. He alleged that five other girls in the class, who are Muslim, allegedly lured his sister and forced her to wear a veil (burqa).
Story continues below this ad
He alleged that they also compelled his sister to accept their religion and that he suspected some ‘deep conspiracy’ behind this activity, which should be thoroughly investigated, the FIR read.
The counsel for one of the petitioners argued that the FIR is based on the complainant’s imagination and carries general and omnibus allegations of conversion without specifying any date, time and place of specific acts done.
The counsel alleged that the complainant was harassing the petitioner and used to follow her to college. On January 17, he allegedly stopped her and proposed. When this happened, the petitioner as well as the other students — who are co-accused — informed his sister and complained to the college principal.
It is for this reason that he lodged the FIR with a concocted story, for the sole purpose of wreaking vengeance, the counsel submitted in court.
Story continues below this ad
Pointing out that the petitioner is a young girl aged 18 years and a student of Class 12, the counsel stressed that there has been no conversion or attempted conversion and the FIR has been lodged mala fide.
The counsel for the second petitioner submitted that she is a co-accused who has already been granted an interim stay of arrest. He further contended that the main allegations are directed against the first petitioner, not against the second petitioner. He claimed the acts leading to crime are attributable to the first petitioner.
However, the counsel for the complainant and the Additional Government Advocate opposed the arguments and submitted that a clear case for the offence is disclosed, which requires thorough investigation.
What the court said
The HC order noted that the victim, in her statement before the judicial magistrate, alleged that the incident occurred on December 20, when her five friends invited her to a hotel to eat snacks after their coaching class. She alleged that the first petitioner brought a burqa and, along with the others, forced her to wear it despite her refusal.
Story continues below this ad
She further alleged that the accused tried to make her eat non-vegetarian food. She also alleged the first petitioner asked her to adopt Islam as her faith and was trying to brainwash her. She said she wants action to be taken against the accused for attempting to convert her.
The court stated, “We notice from the case diary that the victim was caught on a CCTV camera, located in an alley, where she was forced to wear the veil (burqa) by the petitioner and the other co-accused…”
The bench further observed that the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioners, that it is a mala fide FIR, is absolutely not borne out by the record.
“There is no FIR lodged earlier that it was the complainant who was stalking or harassing the petitioner or had proposed to her… [and] the stand of the victim before the Judicial Magistrate cannot be trashed. It carries all the necessary facts, which would prima facie attract provisions of Section 3 and 5(1) of the [anti-conversion] Act of 2021,” the court stated.
Story continues below this ad
The bench added that whether the petitioners’ acts constitute “allurement or undue influence” are premature questions to be examined in a petition to quash the FIR.
“In the totality of circumstances, we do not find it to be a fit case where we ought to interdict investigation and quash the impugned FIR… both petitions… are dismissed. The interim order dated 12.02.2026 passed in the present petition is vacated,” the division bench said in its order.
