Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

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

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)

Table of Content
1. final conclusions on quashing of specific firs (Para 1 , 161)
2. overview of the case involving multiple firs (Para 2 , 4)
3. impugned judgments summary from the high court (Para 6 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. details of firs related to alleged mass conversion (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. parties' submissions regarding legality of firs (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2025 Supreme(SC) 1831

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.

Cases Referred (38)

Judicial Analysis

Related Judgments

Samcar Glass Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Exicse, Jaipur

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546