“A Glaring Example” Of Authorities Acting To “Score Brownie Points” In Absence Of Any Offence | Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR Under UP Anti-Conversion Law
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani quashed an FIR registered against five persons under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and BNS. The Bench described the case as a “glaring example of the State authorities falling and scrambling over each other in order to score brownie points,” concluding that the allegations of abduction and forced conversion were unsubstantiated. It held that the woman involved had left home by choice and that no criminal offence was made out. The Court ordered the release of the detained petitioner and directed the State to pay compensation for failing to act on the victim’s statement and prolonging his unlawful custody.
The petition was filed by five individuals seeking to quash a First Information Report lodged at Police Station Matera, District Bahraich, under Section 140(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and later under Sections 316(2), 317(2) of the BNS and Section 3(1)(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The FIR was registered by the husband of a woman alleging that she had left home with jewellery and cash at the instigation of the petitioners, who were purportedly involved in religious conversion activities.
The woman subsequently appeared before the authorities and stated that she had gone away of her own accord due to domestic disputes and had taken her jewellery, which she claimed as her stridhan. Her statement was recorded first under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and later under Section 183, wherein she denied any forced conversion or abduction and clarified that she had not been coerced by the petitioners.
Based on the earlier statement, additional offences under the 2021 Act and BNS provisions relating to breach of trust and stolen property were added, leading to the arrest of one petitioner. The investigating officer later confirmed that the jewellery was recovered and placed in police custody, and that an application for its release was pending before the competent court. Despite the woman’s later statement denying the allegations, the authorities did not take corrective action under Section 189 of the BNSS to release the petitioner, resulting in his continued detention at the time of the hearing.
It examined the allegations under Section 140 BNS and stated that the victim “has stated to have gone on her own accord… and thus, the offence as per Section 140… is clearly not made out.”
Regarding the added offences, the Court noted that Sections 316(2) and 317(2) BNS “only entail a sentence of five years and three years respectively” and, as per established precedent, would not justify automatic arrest. The Court recorded that these offences were “clearly not made out considering the statement of the respondent No.5… that the jewellery pertains to stridhan.”
The Court further observed that despite the victim’s statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. on 19.09.2025, “none of the offences… are said to have been committed,” yet authorities failed to act. It noted that action under Section 189 B.N.S.S. should have been taken since there was “no evidence or reasonable ground or suspicion to justify the forwarding of the petitioners to Magistrate.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajendra Bihari Lal, the Court stated that High Courts are obligated to exercise inherent powers where continuation of proceedings would lead to injustice. It recorded that the FIR had been filed “in a vexatious manner” and that the authorities’ failure to act amounted to an abuse of process.
The Court expressed concern that the petitioner had remained incarcerated for over one and a half months despite clear exculpatory evidence, observing that this compelled imposition of exemplary costs.
It stated that “the impugned FIR dated 13.9.2025… under Sections 140(1), 316(2), 317(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(5) of the Act, 2021 is quashed.” It ordered that “Petitioner no.1 shall immediately be released if not wanted in any other case.”
The Court directed that exemplary costs of Rs.75,000 be imposed on the State of Uttar Pradesh, specifying that “Rs.50,000 would be paid to the petitioner No.1… and remaining Rs.25,000 would be deposited with the Legal Aid Services of this Court.” It recorded that the State would be free to proceed against the erring officials, including respondent No.4.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sheikh Mohammad Ali
For the Respondents: Dr. V.K. Singh, Government Advocate; G.D. Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate; Pawan Kumar Mishra; Ramesh Gupta
Case Title: Umed @ Ubaid Kha and Others vs. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lko. and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:67574-DB
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9068 of 2025
Bench: Justice Abdul Moin, Justice Babita Rani
