The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the first information report dated 23.01.2023. A division bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Gajendra Kumar analysed the scope of section 4 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act and held that office bearers such as Vishva Hindu Parishad are not competent persons under section 4 to lodge an FIR.
Brief Facts:
The instant writ petition was filed to seek quashing of the first information report dated 23.01.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.54 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506, 120-B IPC & Section 3/5 (1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report was lodged on 14th April, 2022. Earlier in time, another first information report on almost identical allegations had been lodged on 15.04.2022 under Sections 153A, 420, 467, 468, and 506 IPC and Section 3/5 (1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Also, the accused in both the first information reports are the same, barring one or two persons, and only the informant in both cases is different. His contention was that the impugned first information report is barred by Section 154 and 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also in view of the law laid down in the Apex Court in T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala, 2001, Vol. 6 SCC 181.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the allegations in the impugned first information report reveal that the offence and allegations are distinct from that in the first information report giving rise to Case Crime No.224 of 2022. Elaborating further, it was submitted that the instant first information report is not hit by the ratio in T.T.Antony's case because it is only any aggrieved person, his/ her parents, brother, sister, or any other person, who is related to him/ her by blood or marriage, who is competent to lodge the first information report where an offence under Section 3 of the Act is alleged.
Observations of the Court:
Firstly, this Court observed that the only material difference in the two first information reports is that the first was lodged by an office bearer of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (“VPH”) while the impugned first information report had been lodged by one Virendra Kumar, who underwent religion conversion allegedly on account of fraud, misrepresentation, coercion and inducements. The issue raised in the present petition was- whether on account of the noted difference, the first information report impugned in the writ petition goes out of the purview of the ratio in the T.T. Anthony's case?
After the perusal of Section 4 of the Act, it came to the notice of the Court that the section provides “any aggrieved person” is competent to lodge the first information report. However, the scope of the said term is completely whittled down by subsequent categories. Therefore, this Court said that any aggrieved person would be a person but is personally aggrieved by his or her fraudulent conversion, be it an individual or in a mass conversion ceremony. In view of the above observation, it was held that the first information report dated 15.04.2022 had not been lodged by a person competent to lodge. For the same reason, the impugned first information report cannot be called a second first information report. It, therefore, cannot be said that there are two separate first information reports of the same incident. Therefore, the ratio in K.K. Anthony (supra) does not cover the case at hand.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition and denied quashing the impugned first information report.
Case Title: Jose Prakash George and 36 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1814 of 2023]
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Gajendra Kumar
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1814 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sagar Mehrotra
Advocate for the Respondents: G.A.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :