Recently, the Allahabad High Court was drawn into a matter involving allegations that religious gatherings, claimed to be peaceful prayer meetings, had led to conduct attracting liability under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, provisions meant to prevent promotion of enmity and deliberate insult to religion. The case reached the court through an application invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to halt the criminal process before trial.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a police report registered in 2023 alleging that during Christian prayer meetings held near a public crossing, the applicant made statements insulting deities of another faith and attempted to induce conversions, thereby disturbing public order. The applicant had earlier submitted a request to local authorities seeking permission to conduct prayer meetings on his private land, but the administration later withdrew this permission, stating that he had set up a tent in a public area and was influencing people to change their religion, creating a situation affecting law and order. After this withdrawal, an FIR was lodged and a charge sheet was filed under Sections 153A and 295A IPC, following a sanction granted under Section 196 CrPC, which is mandatory for prosecution under these offences.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The counsel for the Applicant contended that the prosecution was unfounded, that the prayer meetings were lawful exercises of his rights under the Constitution, and that witnesses during investigation did not support the allegations. The counsel argued that the essential ingredients of Sections 153A and 295A IPC were missing and that continuing the proceedings would amount to misuse of the criminal process.
Contentions of the State:
The State asserted that a proper sanction under Section 196 CrPC had been granted in 2024, validating the prosecution. It relied on witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, particularly one alleging that the applicant had spoken disparagingly about religious deities and attempted to allure individuals into conversion, conduct that, according to the State, attracted both Section 153A (promoting enmity) and Section 295A (deliberate insult to religion). The State argued that these statements justified refusal to quash the proceedings and that assessment of their truth belonged to the trial stage.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that it could not evaluate evidence or conduct a factual inquiry under inherent jurisdiction, noting that investigative statements cannot be treated as proof. It stated verbatim that “statement of a witness recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. is not an evidence and such statement is only for contradicting or corroborating the statement of a witness recorded on oath as examination-in-chief and cross-examination at the stage of trial. It is also settled law that this Court cannot conduct trial and the same can only be done by the trial court” On this basis, the Court found no scope to intervene at the pre-trial stage.
The Court then turned to the discrepancy in the applicant’s affidavit regarding his religious identity, contrasting it with the investigation material suggesting conversion. This led the Court to recall the constitutional position under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which states that “no person who professes a religion different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.” The Court reinforced this by citing Soosai v. Union of India, where it was held that a Christian cannot be regarded as a Scheduled Caste.
To highlight the legal consequences of conversion, the Court referred to K.P. Manu Vs. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate and C. Selvarani Vs. The Special Secretary-cum-District Collector and Ors., noting the Supreme Court’s view that Scheduled Caste benefits cannot continue after adopting another religion and that asserting dual identity amounts to “fraud on the Constitution.” These authorities shaped the Court’s view that the applicant’s religious status required an administrative inquiry.
The decision of the Court:
The Court refused to quash the criminal case, holding that the issues raised must be tested in trial and not under inherent jurisdiction. It left it open for the applicant to seek discharge before the trial court. It also directed the District Magistrate to verify the Applicant’s actual religious status and take action if any false affidavit was filed.
Case Title: Jitendra Sahani V. State of U.P. and another
Case No.: Application U/S 482 No. - 41457 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Counsel for the Applicant: Adv. Patsy David, Adv. Vandana Henry
Counsel for the State: Govt. Advocate
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
