Anil Tekchandani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8270 MP

                                            1      The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

                                                                   CRR No. 3617 of 2019
                                                        (ANIL TEKCHANDANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)




                                            Indore: Dated:06/12/2021:-
                                                  Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                                  Shri Vismit Panot, learned Panel Lawyer for the
                                            respondent/State.

This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred against the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in C.C.No.648/2015 whereby an application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.

The brief facts of the case is that on 14.10.2014, in front of IIPS College in University Campus, Indore, the petitioner instigated the persons gathered there for religious conversion and when the mob opposed it, the petitioner has abetted them by allurement. The FIR bearing Crime No.810/2014 for offence under Section 3 & 4 of M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 1968 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') was registered against the petitioner and some material were recovered from the accused/petitioner and after investigation charge sheet was filed on 27.12.2014 and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 12.03.2015 took cognizance of the charge sheet for offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking discharge on the grounds that none of the allegations in the documents relied upon by the prosecution have the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 3

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by and 4 of the Act. The petitioner is a member of the Jehovah's SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2021.12.13 16:57:44 IST 2 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

CRR No. 3617 of 2019 (ANIL TEKCHANDANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

witnesses, a minority Christian religion, whose practices have been recognized as being entitled to Constitutional protection by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel and others Vs. State of Kerala and others AIR 1987 SC 748. The petitioner practices his religion peacefully ever since he became one of Jehovah's witness. His religious practice and worship included sharing of the good news from the Holy Scriptures with others. On 14.10.2014, as he was peacefully practicing his religion he was subjected to vicious verbal attack and accused of a crime he never committed. His fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate his religion was violated. Even the police officials failed and neglected to protect the petitioner and succumbed to the pressures of the political and religious leaders.

In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi, Vs. State of Bombay (1954 Indlaw SC 152) it has also been held that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to every person, and not merely to the citizens of India, the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion subject to the restrictions which Article 25 imposes. In Nagayya Vs. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.102268/2015 GM-RES) it was held that if somebody wants to practice, propagate a particular religion, he cannot be attacked by persons belonging to any other denomination or religion or faith. He is entitled to every possible protection at the hands of the police.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by charges alleged against the petitioner are groundless. No essential SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2021.12.13 16:57:44 IST 3 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

CRR No. 3617 of 2019 (ANIL TEKCHANDANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

ingredients to constitute an offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act has been made out by the complainant in his complaint or by the witnesses in their statements or in the FIR and the documents produced in evidence. Neither the complaint, FIR, charge sheet nor the materials being collected in the course of investigation form essential ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 it is also submitted by the petitioner that no prima facie evidence is available against the petitioner leading to suspicion of him committing the alleged offences leave alone grave suspicion. Mere suspicion not sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is not an iota of material available on record to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.

Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and another AIR 2010 SC 663, Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2010 (9) SCC 368, Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403, it is submitted that a mere suspicion is not enough at the stage of framing charge against the petitioner and such suspicion should be very strong suspicion founded upon materials available on record to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offences

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by alleged.

  SAN                 REENA JOSEPH
                      Date: 2021.12.13
                      16:57:44 IST
                                             4      The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

                                                                   CRR No. 3617 of 2019

(ANIL TEKCHANDANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

The learned trial Court has given reasoning on the impugned order on his presumption that the accused have committed the offences. The prejudice of the learned Magistrate is evidence in the impugned order which even if rebutted in the trial will have negligent effect on the Magistrate who has already made up his mind that the accused have committed the alleged offences. Framing of charges and subsequent proceedings are serious criminal proceedings, which impact the rights of any person and in the instance are prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner. On these grounds, it is prayed that the order of the trial Court may be set aside and the petitioner be discharged.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this revision.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Act is reproduced as under:-

"3. Prohibition of forcible conversion. - No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.

4. Punishment for contravention of the provisions of Section 3. - Any person contravening the provisions contained in Section 3 shall, without prejudice to any civil liability, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both :

Provided that in case the offence is committed in respect of a minor, a women or a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes the Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN REENA JOSEPH Date: 2021.12.13 punishment shall be imprisonment to the extent of 16:57:44 IST 5 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

CRR No. 3617 of 2019 (ANIL TEKCHANDANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

two years and fine up to ten thousand rupees." As per prosecution, the petitioner was instigating/abetting the people gathered there for conversion of religion and also alluring them to give money for education. It is clear that there is attempt by the petitioner to convert the person from one religion to another by allurement and abetting. Every person have personal right to practice, propagate a particular religion, but he has no right to instigate/abet the person to convert the religion. Hence, there is prima facie evidence available against the petitioner regarding the charges alleged against him.

The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Rev. Stainislaus vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors reported in (1977) 1 SCC 677 has held as under:-

"Article 25(1) by giving the right to propagate one's religion does not grant the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets."

In view of the aforesaid, the present criminal revision is dismissed, however, with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial and decide the case as expeditiously as possible.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE Signature Not Verified SAN VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by REENA JOSEPH Date: 2021.12.13 RJ 16:57:44 IST