"Glaring Example of Official Overreach": Allahabad HC Quashes Anti-Conversion FIR, Awards Compensation

In a scathing rebuke of state machinery, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against five individuals under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court condemned the case as a "glaring example of the State authorities falling and scrambling over each other in order to score brownie points," ordering the immediate release of one petitioner and imposing exemplary costs on the State for his illegal detention.

The division bench, comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani, not only invalidated the proceedings but also directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹50,000 in compensation to the petitioner, Umed @ Ubaid Kha, who had been incarcerated since September 18, 2025, "for no fault of his." An additional ₹25,000 was ordered to be deposited with the High Court's Legal Aid Services, underscoring the gravity of the official misconduct.

---

Background of the "False and Vexatious" FIR

The case originated from an FIR lodged on September 13, 2025, by a complainant alleging that his wife had gone missing with cash and jewelry. He accused the five petitioners of instigating her departure and claimed they were part of a "gang" engaged in religious conversions. Consequently, charges were filed under Sections 140(1) (kidnapping/abduction), 316(2) (criminal breach of trust), and 317(2) (stolen property) of the BNS, alongside Section 3(1)(5) of the UP Anti-Conversion Law.

The entire prosecution narrative, however, unraveled swiftly. The complainant's wife, upon learning of the FIR, voluntarily returned and, after initially supporting the allegations under duress, set the record straight. In her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on September 19, 2025—just one day after the primary petitioner's arrest—she unequivocally denied the allegations.

She clarified that she had left her home of her own free will due to persistent domestic abuse by her husband. She explicitly refuted any claims of religious conversion or abduction and confirmed that she had returned with all the jewelry. This statement, recorded before a magistrate, effectively dismantled the foundational basis of the FIR.

High Court's Scrutiny and Legal Analysis

The High Court's judgment meticulously dissected the failures of the investigating authorities at every stage following the woman's crucial statement. The bench expressed profound dismay that despite possessing irrefutable evidence that falsified the FIR, the state machinery not only failed to release the petitioner but actively perpetuated his "illegal" incarceration for nearly a month and a half.

1. The Investigating Officer's Dereliction of Duty under BNSS

The Court's sharpest criticism was reserved for the investigating officer's failure to invoke Section 189 of the BNSS, 2023, which pertains to the "Release of accused when evidence deficient." The bench observed that the woman's statement on September 19 completely negated the accusations, leaving no reasonable grounds for continuing the investigation, let alone the detention of the accused.

"However, the said course of action was also not resorted to by the authorities for reasons best known and the petitioner No.1 is continuing to languish in jail even at the time of dictating of this order," the Court noted with astonishment.

This observation serves as a critical judicial reminder of the statutory duties imposed on investigating agencies under the new criminal codes, which empower them to take corrective action and prevent the abuse of process.

2. Non-Application of Arnesh Kumar Principles

The bench also pointed out that the initial arrest itself was questionable. The BNS offences cited—Sections 316(2) and 317(2)—carry maximum sentences of five and three years, respectively. The Court highlighted that under the well-established principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , arrest is not an automatic recourse for offences with sentences of less than seven years. The authorities failed to demonstrate any compelling necessity for the arrest, further compounding the injustice.

3. The Obligation to Quash Proceedings as an Abuse of Process

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2025) , the High Court reiterated that when criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or are instituted maliciously to wreak vengeance, the judiciary is not merely empowered but obligated to quash them to prevent an abuse of the court's process. The bench concluded that the continuation of the prosecution, in this case, was a textbook example of such an abuse.

The Court found the FIR to be "false and vexatious," remarking that once the woman's statement was recorded and the jewelry was recovered, "there was no reasonable ground existing for the continuing prosecution of the accused no. 1."

Imposing Exemplary Costs for Illegal Detention

Drawing a direct parallel to the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Dr. Rini Johar & Anr. vs State Of MP & Ors (2016) , where significant compensation was awarded for illegal detention, the Allahabad High Court found the present case to be on a "similar footing."

"Instant case is also on similar footing…despite the victim's statement totally falsifying the FIR, the respondent authorities did not deem it fit to take any corrective action. This thus compels this Court to award exemplary cost of Rs.75,000/- on the State of Uttar Pradesh," the bench declared.

By imposing a financial penalty, the Court sent a powerful message that the state cannot trample upon the personal liberty of its citizens with impunity. The judgment also granted the State liberty to initiate proceedings against the erring officials, including the complainant who lodged the false FIR, thereby holding open the door for individual accountability.

Implications for Legal Practice and State Accountability

This judgment is a significant judicial intervention that carries several important implications:

• Scrutiny of Anti-Conversion Laws: It highlights the potential for anti-conversion statutes to be weaponized through false and malicious complaints, often rooted in domestic or personal disputes.
• Emphasis on New Criminal Codes (BNSS): The ruling serves as an early and forceful interpretation of the duties of investigating officers under the BNSS, particularly the obligation to release an accused when evidence is found to be deficient.
• Upholding Personal Liberty: The decision reinforces the judiciary's role as a bulwark against executive overreach and arbitrary deprivation of liberty, upholding Article 21 of the Constitution.
• A Warning Against "Scoring Brownie Points": The Court's pointed remarks about authorities "scrambling... to score brownie points" serve as a stern warning against politically motivated or performative law enforcement that disregards due process and fundamental rights.

In allowing the writ petition and ordering the petitioner's immediate release, the Allahabad High Court has not only delivered justice to the individuals wrongly accused but has also issued a powerful directive to the state on the constitutional and statutory limits of its power.