The competence of the person lodging the first information report under Section 4 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act is crucial in determining the validity of the first information report.

JUDGMENT :

1. Head Shri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General for the State.

2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 23.01.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.54 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506, 120-B IPC & Section 3/5 (1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the incident regarding which, the impugned first information report has been lodged is of 14th April, 2022. Earlier in time, another first information report on almost identical allegations had been lodged on 15.04.2022 which gave rise to Case Crime No.224 of 2022, under Sections 153A, 420, 467, 468, and 506 IPC and Section 3/5 (1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

4. The first informant in the instant case is one of the witnesses whose statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No.224 of 2022, on 15.04.2022 itself. Even the accused in both the first information reports are the same barring one or two persons. Only the informant in both the cases is different. Both the cases allege mass religions conversion by fraud, coercion and allurement.

5. On the basis of above facts, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned first information report is barred by Section 154 and 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also in view of the law laid down in the Apex Court in T.T. Anthony Vs. State of Kerala, 2001, Vol. 6 SCC 181, which view has been reiterated in various other cases referred to in the body of the writ petition.

6. Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has vehemently submitted that the impugned first information report would not be hit by the ratio in the case of T.T. Antony (supra). Both the cases are different. The impugned first information report has been lodged by the victim, who was coerced into religions conversion by inducements as well.

7. It is also submitted that the allegations in the impugned first information report reveal that the offence and allegations are distinct from that in the first information report giving rise to Case Crime No.224 of 2022.

8. He has next submitted that the first information report itself gives the reason for the delay in it lodgement. Initially, the first informant was under pressure and it was only after he emerged from it that he could muster courage to lodge the first information report. He has alleged in his first information report that threats were extended to him as also his family members.

9. Elaborating further, it has also been submitted by Shri Manish Goel that the instant first information report is not hit by the ratio in T.T.Antony's because it is only any aggrieved person, his/ her parents, brother, sister, or any other person, who is related to him/ her by blood or marriage, who is competent to lodge the first information report where an offence under Section 3 of the Act is alleged.

10. Shri Dilip Kumar has reiterated his arguments made earlier that upon perusal of the two first information reports, it is clear that both first information reports are with regard to the same incident, which took place on 14.04.2022, wherein, mass religion conversion is said to have taken place at Fatehpur. Even the accused in both the cases are almost identical. It is just that a couple of additional persons have been arrayed as accused in the impugned first information report.

11. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. The only material difference in the two first information reports is that the first was lodged by an office bearer of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad while the impugned first information report has been lodged by one Virendra Kumar, who underwent religion conversion all