“‘Unlawful Religious Conversion Is a Serious Offence’: Allahabad High Court Holds Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed on Basis of Settlement”
Safiya Malik
The Single Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan of the Allahabad High Court dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash proceedings in a rape and religious conversion case on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. The Court held that offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020 are grave and non-compoundable. It recorded that such offences have a serious societal impact and cannot be treated as private disputes amenable to settlement. The Court concluded that the compromise could not be a ground to nullify criminal proceedings and dismissed the application accordingly.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the charge sheet No. 230 of 2021 dated 7 May 2021 and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1340 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 220 of 2021, under Sections 420, 323, 376, 344 IPC and Section 3/4(1) of the U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020, registered at Police Station Swar, District Rampur.
Also Read: OCI Cards Cannot Be Cancelled Arbitrarily Without Giving a Hearing: Delhi High Court
According to the contents of the FIR lodged on 7 June 2021, the complainant became acquainted with an individual through a social media platform. It was alleged that after prolonged online interaction and telephonic communication, the individual proposed marriage, to which the complainant agreed, and subsequently travelled to Rampur. It was further claimed that she was taken to his village and detained there for approximately six months, during which she was allegedly subjected to repeated sexual assault after discovering his religious identity. The FIR additionally named two individuals—reportedly the brother-in-law and elder brother of the principal accused—as having also committed sexual assault. The complainant stated that she eventually escaped and lodged the complaint.
During the investigation, statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the complainant reportedly affirmed the version given in the FIR and identified the brother-in-law and elder brother of the principal accused as additional perpetrators. A medical examination was conducted, and a charge sheet was subsequently submitted.
Subsequently, a compromise was reportedly entered into between the parties and was verified before the trial court. The applicant approached the High Court seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings on the basis of this compromise. It was argued that the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and would serve no purpose, as the parties had resolved their dispute. Reliance was placed on judgments such as B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and others to submit that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings even in non-compoundable cases in the interest of justice.
The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the application, stating that the nature of the allegations—specifically under Sections 376 IPC and the U.P. Conversion Prevention Act—are grave and of societal concern, and hence not amenable to quashing merely due to compromise.
The Court framed the central issue as whether the entire proceedings, including the charge sheet in a case involving rape and unlawful religious conversion, could be quashed on the basis of a compromise. It began by examining the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and its interplay with Section 320 of the Code.
Quoting the statute, the Court noted: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
The Court observed that the power under Section 482 is not restricted by Section 320 Cr.P.C. but must be exercised with caution, especially in cases involving grave offences. Referring to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court stated: “Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute.”
It cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan to hold that while certain disputes having overwhelmingly civil character may be quashed on compromise, “such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.”
Regarding the specific facts of the case, the Court found that the allegations involved unlawful confinement, repeated sexual assault, and forced religious conversion, none of which could be termed private in nature. It stated: “Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’ through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means.”
The Court relied on Shimbhu v. State of Haryana to reinforce that rape is an offence against society, and observed: “There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct.”
Referring to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madan Lal, the Court reiterated: “These are the offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. Dignity of a woman is a part of her non-perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay.”
On the issue of religious conversion, the Court noted that bona fide conversion involves sincere change of faith and belief. It recorded: “If a conversion is not inspired by religious feeling and undergone for its own sake, but is resorted merely with object of creating a ground for some claim of right or as a device… the conversion shall not be bonafide.”
It further quoted Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh to affirm that: “There is no fundamental right to convert another person to one's own religion because… that would impinge on the 'freedom of conscience' guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike.”
The Court held that the object of the U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020 is to prevent unlawful conversions by coercion, misrepresentation or allurement and that such violations are not suitable for resolution through compromise. It recorded: “Unlawful religious conversion, particularly when achieved through coercion, fraud, or undue influence, is considered a serious offence, in which the Court cannot quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement.”
The Court, after examining the legal principles, precedents, and factual matrix of the case, concluded that the offences alleged were of a grave nature and could not be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely on the basis of a settlement between the parties.
The Court held: “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as above stated position of law, the Court finds that the alleged offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4(1) U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020, are serious in nature and non-compoundable, therefore, the instant proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
The application was accordingly rejected. The Court stated: “The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ved Prakash Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Vijai Kumar Tiwari, Government Advocate; Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate
Case Title: XXXX v. State of U.P. and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:44070
Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 18295 of 2021
Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
[Read/Download order]
