Published on 19 April 2026
Subject :
Description :
It is definitely most worrisome and a matter of grave concern that definitely cannot be ignored any longer that none other than Allahabad High Court which is the biggest High Court in not only just India, in not only just Asia, in not only just few continents but in whole world and all the continents and that too not by a Single Judge Bench but by a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Abdul Moin and so also Hon’ble Mr Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mohd Faizan and Others vs State of UP and Others in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 2962 of 2026 that was pronounced as recently as on April 13, 2026 has flagged its utmost serious concerns about a very “disturbing trend” of false cases being registered by third parties under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. It is certainly worth paying singular attention that the Division Bench expressed its extreme concerns in a case where three Muslim men were booked under the 2021 anti-conversion law titled Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The Division Bench deemed it fit to stay their arrest as no case was made out for arresting them!
However, the Division Bench found that the alleged victim in her statement before the Magistrate has said that she is an adult and in love with the man for the past three years. It noted that though Section 69 of the BNS has been dropped, the Investigating Officer has proceeded with further investigation under other offences. The Court said that, prima facie, the Investigating Officer was acting under pressure or was ‘persuaded’ by some other factors.
We need to note that the Division Bench also ordered that the petitioners (accused men) shall not be arrested till further orders. Further, it must also be borne in mind that the Division Bench took note of the apprehension expressed by the woman that she is apprehensive of her safety and the safety of her relatives after her statement. It was also ordered by the Division Bench specifically that adequate State security shall be extended both to the petitioners (accused) as well as the victim and her family members.
From my perspective, there has to be zero tolerance for those who initiate false cases under anti conversion law. Those who still indulge in the same deserve the most strictest punishment under the law. When conversion can be punished most strictly then why should action not be taken against those who file false cases under anti-conversion law as demanded most commendably even by the Allahabad High Court in this leading case?
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Abdul Moin and so also Hon’ble Mr Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava of Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for respondents no.1 to 3.”
As we see, the Division Bench then directs in para 2 mandating that, “Issue notice to respondent no.4. Steps be taken within a week.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 4 that, “From perusal of the allegations as levelled in the impugned FIR it emerges that the respondent no.4 has lodged the said FIR by contending that his daughter has been enticed away by the petitioner no.3 with the assistance of other petitioners. It has been alleged that there is every likelihood of the petitioners trying to change the religion of the complainant's daughter and to force her to marry. It has also been alleged that all the persons as named in the FIR are harassing the complainant and his wife and are forcing them to change their religion.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 6 that, “Learned AGA has produced the statement of the alleged victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS 2023 on 09.04.2026 per which she has indicated that she is major aged about 18 years. She is in love with petitioner no.3 since last three years. She has further stated that her religion has not been changed neither the petitioner has married her nor has established physical relations with her neither the petitioner no.3 or his relatives have coerced the victim to change her religion. She has further stated that she wants to reside with petitioner no.3 and her religion has not been changed. She has also prayed in her statement that the members of the Hindu Organizations should not harass her or her relatives.”
Quite significantly, it just cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench points out in para 7 holding that, “Needless to mention that the statement under Section 183 of BNSS 2023 is recorded before the learned Magistrate. Once the statement of the alleged victim had been recorded on 09.04.2026 which patently belies the allegations as levelled in the impugned FIR it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to have proceeded accordingly. However, for reasons best known, the Investigating Officer took a peculiar turn as emerges from a perusal of the Case Diary No.9 dated 10.04.2026 per which the Investigating Officer has recorded that after perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS 2023 no case of rape is made out and consequently Section 69 of BNS 2023 has been dropped. However, the matter has been proceeded further for investigation under Sections 87, 351(3) of BNS 2023 and 3/5(1) of the Act, 2021 against three persons. Why we use the words ‘peculiar turn’ is that when from the statement of the alleged victim none of the offences as indicated under Sections 87, 351(3) of BNS 2023 and 3/5(1) of the Act, 2021 emerged and that statement, as already indicated above, has been recorded before the learned Magistrate which also finds place in the version of the Investigating Officer the requirement of further investigation by the Investigating Officer is not understood. Prima facie, it emerges that the Investigating Officer is acting under pressure or is ‘persuaded’ by some other factors. We need not say anything more at this stage.”
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 8 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “he statement of the victim vis-a-vis the allegations as levelled in the FIR gives rise to a disturbing trend which is being noticed time and again by the courts of law pertaining to FIRs being lodged by third parties under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2021’). The statement of the victim itself indicates that she is apprehensive of her safety and the safety of her relatives after her statement being recorded and she being apprehensive of being harassed and troubled by the various Organizations.”
Further, the Bench then stipulates in para 14 holding that, “Till then, the petitioners shall not be arrested in pursuance of the said FIR.”
What’s more, the Division Bench then further observes in para 15 directing and holding that, “Further, considering the statement of the victim as recorded under section 183 of the BNSS, adequate State security shall be extended both to the petitioners as well as the victim and her family members, which shall be provided within three days from today.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 16 stipulating that, “The personal affidavit to be filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) should also indicate about the compliance of this order including providing of security to the persons as indicated above.”
false cases - anti-conversion law - judicial review - FIR quashing - third party complaints - investigation pressure - court directives
#CriminalLaw #JudicialAccountability
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.