1. Multiple FIRs registered under the Indian Penal Code and U.P. Conversion Act alleging unlawful religious conversions — challenge to the validity of FIRs and subsequent proceedings. (Para 2 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1831
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Rajendra Bihari Lal and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 123 of 2023, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 141 of 2023, Criminal Appeal Nos. 4565-4567 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 7233-7235 of 2023], Criminal Appeal No. 4568 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 7380 of 2023], Criminal Appeal No. 4569 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 10187 of 2023], Criminal Appeal No. 4570 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 13679 of 2023], Criminal Appeal Nos. 4571-4572 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 13231-13232 of 2023], Criminal Appeal Nos. 4573-4576 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos. 15251-15254 of 2023], Criminal Appeal No. 4577 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 3818 of 2023], Criminal Appeal No. 4578 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 10555 of 2024], Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 315 of 2024 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8615 of 2024]
Decided On : 17-10-2025
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Payoshi Roy, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M., Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M, Adv. Mr. V. Swetha, Adv. Ms. V. Swetha, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.s, AOR Mr. Vikash Chandra Shukla, AOR Mr. Aishvary Vikram, Adv. Mr. Lakshya Siddheshwar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Isha Barshiliya, Adv. Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philip, AOR Mr. Febin Mathew Varghese, Adv. Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Namrata Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Achalika Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jemtiben A.o, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sharma, AOR Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. C.u. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanbha Rumnong, Adv. Mr. M.f. Philip, Adv. Mr. M. F. Philip, Adv. Ms. Lija Merin John, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Mr. Ajay Prajapati, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Ms. Oorjasvi Goswami, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Ms. Nidhi, AOR
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Payoshi Roy, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha, Adv. Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M., Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M, Adv. Mr. V. Swetha, Adv. Ms. V. Swetha, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.s, AOR Mr. Vikash Chandra Shukla, AOR Mr. Aishvary Vikram, Adv. Mr. Lakshya Siddheshwar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Isha Barshiliya, Adv. Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philip, AOR Mr. Febin Mathew Varghese, Adv. Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Namrata Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Achalika Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jemtiben A.o, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sharma, AOR Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. C.u. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanbha Rumnong, Adv. Mr. M.f. Philip, Adv. Mr. M. F. Philip, Adv. Ms. Lija Merin John, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Mr. Ajay Prajapati, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Ms. Oorjasvi Goswami, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Ms. Nidhi, AOR
An FIR under the U.P. Conversion Act can only be lodged by specified persons, and multiple FIRs for the same incident are impermissible, warranting quashing of improper FIRs to prevent abuse of the legal process.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 153-A, 506, 420, 467, 468, 120-B - Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 - Mass conversion incident on 14.04.2022 - Multiple FIRs registered under the Act - FIR No. 224/2022 lodged by a complainant who lacked standing under Section 4 of the Act - Later FIRs (54/2023, 55/2023, and 60/2023) also quashed due to being repetitious of the earlier complaint and violating the principle in T.T. Antony case regarding one FIR for one incident - Conclusion reached that FIR No. 224/2022 is invalid, and FIRs 54, 55, and 60 cannot be sustained under law; thus, all consequent proceedings quashed. (Paras 161 to 165)
(B) Right to religious freedom - Restrictions applicable to the initiation of complaints regarding unlawful conversions are meant to protect personal liberty and mitigate unsolicited interference from unrelated parties, thereby maintaining the sanctity of voluntary conversions and addressing misuse of judicial processes by complainants lacking legitimate standing. (Paras 119 to 120)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners challenge FIRs based on lack of locus of complainants, multiplicity of FIRs for one incident, and inordinate delay; State argues the FIRs disclose cognizable offences. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
3. The court found the investigation lacked bona fides, noting cyclostyled statements and a failure to adhere to the statutory locus requirements for lodging FIRs under the U.P. Conversion Act. (Para 35 , 36 , 109 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 127 , 138 , 139 , 153 )
4. FIRs under the U.P. Conversion Act must be lodged by persons specified in Section 4; subsequent FIRs for the same incident are impermissible under the test of sameness. (Para 98 , 99 , 109 , 116 , 117 )
5. FIRs 224/2022, 47/2023, 54/2023, 55/2023, and 60/2023 quashed; charges under U.P. Conversion Act in FIR 538/2023 quashed, while IPC charges are de-tagged for further hearing. (Para 161 )
6. Who is competent to lodge an FIR under the unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act?
Only an aggrieved person, their parents, siblings, or relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption may lodge an FIR. This restriction protects individual autonomy and prevents third-party intrusion into the private sphere of religious choice. (Para 45 , 105 , 109 , 117 , 118 )
7. Is the registration of multiple FIRs for the same incident permissible under Indian law?
No. Once an FIR is registered, subsequent information regarding the same incident constitutes a statement under Section 162 CrPC. A second FIR for the same occurrence is an abuse of process and liable to be quashed. (Para 96 , 98 , 99 , 100 )
8. Can an FIR be quashed after the police have filed a chargesheet?
Yes. The filing of a chargesheet does not preclude the High Court from quashing proceedings if the FIR and chargesheet collectively fail to disclose an offence or constitute an abuse of process. (Para 85 , 86 , 87 )
9. Is a writ petition under Article 32 maintainable for seeking the quashing of an FIR?
Yes. While petitioners are generally expected to approach the High Court first, the Supreme Court can entertain Article 32 petitions in glaring cases of fundamental rights violations or deprivation of liberty. (Para 90 , 91 , 93 , 94 )
10. What is the test of sameness in the context of multiple FIRs?
The court examines whether two FIRs relate to the same incident or occurrence. If they do, the second FIR is quashed, unless it presents a rival version or a counter-case. (Para 99 , 100 )
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
| INDEX | |
| A. | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| B. | IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS |
| C. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS |
| D. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH |
| E. | ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION |
| F. | ANALYSIS |
| i. Scheme of the U.P. Conversion Act | |
| ii. Principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings | |
| iii. Whether an FIR can be quashed after the filing of chargesheet? | |
| iv. Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 32? | |
| v. Whether multiple FIRs pertaining to the same alleged offence are maintainable? | |
| vi. Whether FIR No. 224/2022, having been lodged at the instance of a complainant other than a person prescribed under the unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act, is liable to be quashed on that ground alone? | |
| vii. Whether FIR No. 47/2023 and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed? | |
| viii. Whether High Court committed any error in refusing to quash FIR No. 54/2023? | |
| ix. Whether FIR No. 538/2023 is liable to be quashed? | |
| G. | CONCLUSION |
1. Leave granted in SLP(Crl) Nos. 7233-7235/2023, SLP(Crl) No. 7380/2023, SLP(Crl) No. 10187/2023, SLP(Crl) No. 13679/2023, SLP(Crl) Nos. 13231- 13232/2023, SLP(Crl) Nos. 15251-15254/2023, SLP(Crl) No. 3818/2023 & SLP(Crl) No. 10555/2024.
2. The present batch of matters, consisting of three Writ Petitions and nine captioned Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions, concerns six FIRs filed under various provisions of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (for short, “the U.P. Conversion Act”) respectively. The details of the FIRs, which are at the heart of the dispute before us, are tabulated below for the sake of convenience:
| S. No. | FIR No. | Date of Registration | Police Station | Provisions |
| 1. | 224/2022 | 15.04.2022 | Kotwali, District Fatehpur | Section 153-A, 506, 420, 467, 468 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 5(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act |
| 2. | 47/2023 | 20.01.2023 | Kotwali, District Fatehpur | Section 120-B of IPC and Section 3 r/w 5(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act |
| 3. | 54/2023 | 23.01.2023 | Kotwali, District Fatehpur | Section(s) 420, 467, 468, 506, 120-B of IPC and Section 3 r/w 5(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act |
| 4. | 55/2023 | 23.01.2023 | Kotwali, District Fatehpur | Section(s) 420, 467, 468, 506, 120-B of IPC and Section 3 r/w 5(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act |
| 5. | 60/2023 | 24.01.2023 | Kotwali, District Fatehpur | Section(s) 420, 467, 468, 506, 120-B of IPC and Section 3 r/w 5(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act |
| 6. | 538/2023 | 11.12.2023 | Nawabganj, Ganganagar | Section(s) 307, 386, 504 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 5(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act |
3. The captioned Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions comprising the present batch of matters arise from seven different impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the details of which are tabulated below:
| S. No. | Details of the SLP | FIR No. | Details of the proceedings before the High Court |
| 1. | SLP (Crl.) No. 7380/2023 | 55/2023 | Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1819/2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 55/2023 dated 23.01.2023 - dismissed vide impugned common judgment and order dated 02.06.2023 |
| 2. | SLP (Crl.) No. 10187/2023 | 60/2023 | Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5180/2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 60/2023 dated 24.01.2023 - dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 05.07.2023 |
| 3. | SLP (Crl.) No. 13679/2023 | 60/2023 | Criminal Misc. Writ Pe |
