2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 22835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NAMRATABEN GORDHANBHAI MACWAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR – Respondent
R/CR.MA/11483/2026
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 11483 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER ==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No YES ==========================================================
NAMRATABEN GORDHANBHAI MACWAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
LD SR ADV. MR MIHIR JOSHI ASSISTED BY MR ISA HAKIM(10874) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MEET THAKKAR, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 31/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1 The present application is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of Criminal Case No.167 of 2026 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khambhat, arising out of FIR No.11215013250640 dated 19.11.2025 registered with Khambhat Rural Po- lice Station, as well as the charge-sheet dated 06.03.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(2) and 4C of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003.
##PAGE2##2 The Fractured Matrix:
2.1 The present applicant is the sole accused ar-
raigned in the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet. Respondent No.2, who is the complainant, is working as an Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) Facili- tator at Bamanva Primary Health Centre on a con- tractual basis. She is the supervisor of ASHA workers of three villages, along with four other health work- ers, namely, Ranjanaben Goswami, Dakshaben Solanki, Ranjanaben Chavda and Dakshaben Parmar, all of whom are working as ASHA workers.It is alleged that, about three years prior to the lodging of the FIR, after a meeting at the Primary Health Centre, Ba- manva, had concluded, respondent No.2 and the aforesaid four ASHA workers were asked to stay back. Thereafter, the present applicant allegedly preached and propagated Christianity and criticized idol worship in the Hindu religion. It is further alleged that the applicant persuaded them to read the Holy Bible and learn about Christianity, while praising the Christian faith and criticizing the Hindu religion.
2.2 It is further alleged that, on similar occasions, after the meetings were over, the applicant asked re- spondent No.2 and the aforesaid four female ASHA workers to stay back and showed them YouTube videos introducing them to the Christian faith. Ac-
##PAGE3##cording to the allegations, the videos depicted wars, the return of Jesus Christ, the establishment of a new order, and propagated the Christian faith. It is alleged that, whenever respondent No.2 and the other fe- male workers refused to watch the videos, they were threatened with adverse consequences relating to their employment, including deduction of their salaries. It is further alleged that, about one year prior to the registration of the FIR, the applicant sent WhatsApp messages to respondent No.2 and the other four female workers inviting them to attend a meeting of Primary Health Workers at Vadodara. Upon reaching the venue, all five of them allegedly realized that it was a function pertaining to the Chris- tian religion. It is alleged that, at the said function, the Christian faith was propagated through sermons, skits and plays, and several persons who had con- verted to Christianity spoke about their experiences. It is further alleged that, even thereafter, the appli- cant continued to propagate Christianity to respon- dent No.2 and the other female workers and, upon their refusal, threatened them with deduction of their salaries. With the aforesaid allegations, the im- pugned FIR came to be registered. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, and the criminal case is presently pending before the learned competent Court for trial.
##PAGE4##3 Heard the learned senior advocat