Alleged ‘Victims’ Of Religious Conversion Can Be Prosecuted If They Induce Others To Convert | Gujarat High Court Dismisses Pleas To Quash FIR On Alleged Mass Conversions
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gujarat, Single Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai dismissed a series of petitions seeking to quash an FIR alleging large-scale religious conversions in Bharuch district. The Court held that individuals who, after being converted, participated in persuading others to change their religion could also be prosecuted for the offence of unlawful conversion. Rejecting the applicants’ plea that they were only victims of conversion, the Bench observed that they could have been treated as victims had they not engaged in inducing others. Finding sufficient prima facie material, the Court directed that the criminal proceedings continue.
The case arose from an FIR registered at Aamod Police Station, District Bharuch, alleging a large-scale conspiracy to convert members of the Hindu community to Islam through financial inducements, promises of housing, food grains, and other benefits. The complainant, a resident of the same village, claimed that he and several others were enticed to convert under false assurances and later discovered that the activity was part of a broader organized effort supported by foreign funding. The FIR initially named nine individuals and was later expanded to sixteen accused following investigation.
The applicants before the Court, comprising religious preachers and trustees of charitable organizations, sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. They contended that they were themselves victims of conversion and had been wrongly implicated. It was argued that the alleged acts occurred before the 2021 amendment to the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003, and therefore could not attract its provisions. They further submitted that no conversion was carried out by force or allurement, and that the prosecution was invalid as no prior sanction was obtained from the competent authority.
The State and the second respondent opposed the petitions, maintaining that the investigation revealed the applicants’ active participation in converting numerous persons by offering material benefits and spreading misleading religious narratives. It was submitted that sanction had been duly obtained and that the allegations disclosed offences under sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to conspiracy, forgery, and criminal intimidation, along with provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the Information Technology Act.
Upon examining the materials, including witness statements, video recordings, and documentary evidence, the Court found sufficient prima facie grounds indicating active involvement of the applicants in inducing conversions and declined to interfere with the ongoing criminal proceedings.
The Court recorded: “In a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court is not conducting any trial, but has to come to a prima facie conclusion about whether an offence is made out or not.” The Bench observed that detailed scrutiny of evidence was beyond the scope of such proceedings.
Addressing the contention regarding delay in filing the FIR, the Court held that the alleged acts were of a continuing nature and punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years, hence the bar of limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC would not apply. Citing Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394, the Court stated: “A criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the society… mere delay in approaching a court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case.” The Court also referred to Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025) to reaffirm that delay in filing FIRs for serious offences cannot be grounds for quashing.
On the issue of locus standi, the Court stated that under Section 3A of the amended Act, “any aggrieved person, his parents, brother, sister, or any other persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption may lodge a first information report.” Accordingly, the complainant was competent to file the complaint. The Court rejected the submission that the complaint should have been confined only to the complainant’s personal case.
Regarding prior sanction, Justice Desai recorded: “The record indicates that sanction was granted by the District Magistrate, Bharuch, on 25.7.2022. Once such sanction exists, its legality and validity may be questioned only during the course of trial.” The Court relied on Dinesh Kumar v. Chairman, Airport Authority of India (2012) 1 SCC 532, holding that absence of sanction could be a ground at inception, but where sanction exists, its validity must be examined at trial.
Considering the arguments that some accused were themselves victims of conversion, the Court stated: “Had those persons, after getting converted, not indulged into any activity of further conversion, they could have been said to be victims. However, their act of influencing and pressurizing others to convert constitutes a prima facie offence.” The Court further held that the evidence, including witness statements and video recordings, justified continuation of proceedings.
In respect of one applicant, a foreign-based trustee alleged to have funded the conversions, the Court observed: “The applicant has not shown any willingness to cooperate with the investigation. He has not come to India since registration of the offence and is also declared absconding in another case.” The Court cited Nadirkhan Babakhan Navabkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat (2004) 1 GLH 569 to hold that a non-cooperative accused cannot claim relief under Section 482 of the CrPC while avoiding investigation.
Justice Desai concluded that segregation of individual roles or evaluation of evidence was within the trial court’s domain, noting that “at this stage, the Court may only consider whether a prima facie offence is made out, and not embark upon appreciation of evidence.”
The Court dismissed all petitions except one withdrawn and two given limited liberty. Justice Desai ruled: “Criminal Misc. Application No.13496 of 2022, Special Criminal Application No.1225 of 2022, Criminal Misc. Application No.13662 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Application No.13667 of 2022 stand dismissed.” The Court held that the trial court may proceed uninfluenced by any prima facie observations.
Regarding Criminal Misc. Application No.309 of 2022: “Though a prima facie offence can be said to have been made out, liberty is reserved to the applicant to avail appropriate remedy once the investigation is over and the charge sheet is filed,” the order recorded.
In Criminal Misc. Application No.11426 of 2022, concerning the foreign-based trustee accused of funding the conversions, the Court noted his non-cooperation and observed: “The applicant has never shown willingness to cooperate with investigation. Prima facie an offence is made out and the petition is dismissed with liberty to avail appropriate remedy once investigation is over.”
Special Criminal Application No.66 of 2022, filed by an advocate challenging summons under Section 160 of the CrPC, was withdrawn after the State clarified that no further action would be taken. The Court recorded the withdrawal and dismissed it as such.
Concluding the common judgment, Justice Desai stated: “The observations made by this Court in the present order are only tentative in nature and the learned trial court may not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court during the course of hearing.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocates I.H. Syed and Maulin Raval, Advocates M.T.M. Hakim, Arjun M. Joshi, Isa Hakim, Aniq A. Kadri, Muhammad Q. Vora, and Umarfaruk M. Kharadi.
For the Respondents: Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin assisted by Public Prosecutor Hardik A. Dave, Additional Public Prosecutors Ronak Raval and Trupesh Kathiriya, and Advocates R.C. Kodekar, Harshesh R. Kakkad, Yogini V. Parikh, Parth A. Bhatt, Maharshi Patel, Alkesh N. Shah, Yash J. Patel, and P.B. Khambholja.
Case Title: X v. State of Gujarat and Others
Case Number: R/CR.MA/309/2022 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Nirzar S. Desai
