Allahabad HC Sounds Alarm: 'Disturbing Trend' of Fake FIRs Plaguing UP's Anti-Conversion Law

In a pointed critique of misuse plaguing Uttar Pradesh's anti-conversion legislation, the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench has flagged a "disturbing trend" of third-party FIRs that crumble under scrutiny. Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, hearing a quashing petition by Mohd. Faizan and two others, questioned why police persisted with an investigation despite the alleged victim's clear denial of coercion. The court stayed arrests, ordered state security, and demanded accountability from both the complainant and top brass.

From Family Feud to Courtroom Clash

The saga unfolded in Bahraich when the father of an 18-year-old woman lodged FIR No. 0066/2026 at Kotwali Nagar police station. He accused Faizan (petitioner no.3) and relatives of enticing his daughter, potentially forcing her religious conversion and marriage—invoking Sections 87 (kidnapping to compel marriage), 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, and Sections 3/5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Harassment of the family and pressure to convert were also alleged.

Petitioners countered that the claims were fabricated, filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2962/2026 on April 13, 2026, seeking FIR quashing.

Victim's Bombshell Statement Upends Narrative

A game-changer came via the woman's statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, recorded before a magistrate on April 9. The major affirmed a three-year consensual relationship with Faizan, denying any conversion, marriage, physical relations, or coercion. Crucially, she expressed fears of harassment from "members of the Hindu Organizations" targeting her and relatives, and wished to live with him.

Media reports, including from Bar and Bench and Live Law , echoed this, noting her apprehension from third parties and relatives.

Petitioners Cry Foul, State Defends Probe

Petitioners' counsel Manoj Kumar Singh hammered the FIR as "totally false," urging quashing given the victim's repudiation. The state's AGA produced the statement but highlighted the investigating officer's case diary (No.9, April 10), which dropped only Section 69 BNS (rape) while pushing ahead on other charges against three accused.

The bench found this "peculiar," questioning why offences under Sections 87, 351(3) BNS and the 2021 Act persisted when the magistrate-recorded statement negated them entirely.

Court's Razor-Sharp Dissection: Pressure on the Police?

Drawing from Supreme Court precedent in Rajendra Bihari Lal vs State of U.P. & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265), the judges spotlighted a societal malaise: third-party FIRs under the 2021 Act that fizzle out, wasting resources. They inferred external influence— "Prima facie, it emerges that the Investigating Officer is acting under pressure or is ‘persuaded’ by some other factors" —without elaborating further.

Reports from The Hindu and Live Law amplified this, citing the bench's frustration over probes lacking "legs to stand on."

Key Observations

"The 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."

"Why we use the words 'peculiar turn' is that when from the statement of the alleged victim none of the offences... emerged... the requirement of further investigation by the Investigating Officer is not understood."

"This is a disturbing trend which has crept in the society now and which has also been indicated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Bihari Lal vs State of U.P. & Ors."

Sweeping Directives Signal Zero Tolerance

The bench issued a multi-pronged order: - Summoned the father (respondent no.4) to explain the "patently false, fake and frivolous FIR," with potential action against him. - Directed Uttar Pradesh's Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file a personal affidavit by May 19, 2026, detailing steps against rampant fallacious FIRs under the Act—or appear in person with records. - Barred arrests of petitioners pending hearing. - Mandated "adequate State security" to petitioners, victim, and family within three days, with compliance reporting.

This interim ruling underscores judicial impatience with lawfare in interfaith romances, potentially curbing knee-jerk FIRs and bolstering victim autonomy. As Bar and Bench noted, it echoes Supreme Court warnings, hinting at broader reforms to prevent "chasing FIRs which do not even have any legs to stand on."

The matter lists for May 19, 2026—watch for the state's response.