##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:45737]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 803/2026 CNR: RJHC010492172026 | URN: CRLR / 1731U / 2026

1. Shri Baljinder Singh Khosa S/o Shri Veer Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o16S Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan - 335073

2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Kamboj S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About

31 Years, Ward No. 11, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan 335073

3. Shri M.s. Matthew, S/o M.a. Sebastian, 63/a Block, Ward No.20, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan -

335073 ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor

2. Shri Sharad Gumber S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan -335073 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Augustine Mr. Mohan Raj (through V.C.)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, PP None present for the complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Judgment

Reportable

22/09/2026

1. Instant criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioners under Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS to challenge order dated 23.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar in a matter arising out of FIR No.290/2025 registered at Police Station Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. [1987 AIR 748], Lalan Kumar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra (Crl. Appeal No.1757/2022) reported as [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1383], Rajendra Biharilal Vs. State of UP reported as [(2025) SCC Online SC 2265], Ratilal Pannachand Gandhi Vs. State of Bombay & Ors. [(1954) 1 S.C.R. 1055 1055], has submitted that on a false report, the police has registered an FIR and without conducting fair and proper investigation, has filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners. He also referred the essential ingredients for commission of offence and submitted that none of them is present to constitute an offence. He also submitted that it was duty of Magistrate to consider the material forwarded by police and find out whether a specific offence has been made out or not. He referred to the ratio as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that issuance of process after registration of a criminal case at the stage of cognizance, is not an ordinary process rather it must show an application of mind and consideration of entire material.

3. Learned counsel has further referred judgment in case of Subhas Bhattacharjee & Ors. Vs. State of Tripura reported in [2019 SCC Online Tri 441], Nagayya Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [2015 SCC Online Kar 9526], Mustafa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka : (2025) SCC OnLine Kar 12650, Ram Kawal Bharti and Ors. Vs. State of UP and Ors. :

MANU/UP/3761/2025 and Submitted that the Magistrate has not gone into the allegations and the evidence collected during investigation along with the provisions of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025 (in short 'the Act of 2025"). He also referred to the evidence on record and submitted that twice in a week, the petitioners used to perform the religious prayers in church or other places but in small gatherings, wherein they used to display and recite the Bible and other religious teachings and same cannot be termed as an attempt for conversion. He also submitted that except the convening of weekly gatherings, there is no evidence on record to show use of fraudulent means or any misrepresentation to entice or allure someone to change and convert to other religion. He also submitted that there is nothing to show any propaganda to allure or entice anyone to convert by defaming and criticising his religion, therefore, the order of cognizance suffers from illegality and same is contrary to settled legal proposition and liable to be set-aside. At last he referred to the orde