Back
Refuses to Quash FIR Against Health Worker in Religious Conversion Case
Justice M.K. Thakker dismisses plea, finds evidence of coercion in alleged conversion attempt targeting vulnerable ASHA workers
The has dismissed a petition filed by Namrataben Gordhanbhai Macwan, a Female Health Worker at , seeking of an FIR and charge-sheet registered against her under . The Court held that the allegations and investigation material disclose the commission of , refusing to interfere under .
The Allegations at the Heart of the Case
The complainant, an ASHA Facilitator working on a contractual basis at , alleged that the applicant—who held a supervisory role over her—systematically targeted herself and four other economically disadvantaged ASHA workers over approximately three years.
According to the FIR registered on with , the applicant allegedly asked the workers to stay back after official meetings, preached Christianity while criticizing Hindu idol worship, and showed them YouTube videos introducing the Christian faith, including content about wars, the return of Jesus Christ, and the establishment of a new order. When the women resisted, she allegedly threatened adverse employment consequences, including deduction of salaries.
The complaint further alleged that the workers were invited to Vadodara under the pretext of a Primary Health Centre meeting, only to find themselves at a Christian religious function where sermons, skits and plays propagated the faith, and converts shared their experiences.
Arguments Before the Court
Petitioner's Submissions: , appearing for the applicant, argued that the applicant is an adherent of Jehovah's Witnesses—a minority Christian denomination recognized by the in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615. He contended that propagation of religious teachings constitutes an protected under , and that no force, allurement or fraudulent means were employed to convert anyone. He further argued that the complainant lacked to lodge a complaint on behalf of other workers, and that prosecution was vitiated for want of mandatory sanction under .
State's Response: countered that a bare perusal of the FIR and investigation material disclosed commission of , warranting no interference in exercise of .
Court's Analysis: A Case Emerges
Rejecting the petitioner's contentions, Justice Thakker observed that the investigation revealed a disturbing pattern of conduct. The Court noted that the applicant targeted economically weaker persons, took advantage of their financial circumstances, propagated Christianity by criticizing Hindu idol worship behind closed doors, and highlighted the perceived benefits of conversion through experiences narrated at the Vadodara programme.
The investigation also disclosed significant financial details—credits amounting to Rs.10,08,66,494 in the applicant's ICICI account and Rs.20,55,16,718 in her HDFC account, both allegedly received from —along with recovery of numerous religious books, pamphlets and diaries. The mobile phone seized from the applicant, from which allegedly incriminating WhatsApp messages had been deleted, was sent to for examination.
Key Observations
The Court made several crucial observations rejecting the petitioner's defence:
"...if one would peruse the material of investigation which suggest that the applicant targeted economically weaker persons, took advantage of their financial circumstances, propagated Christianity by criticizing idol worship in the Hindu religion by closing doors of rooms, and highlighted the perceived benefits of conversion through the experiences narrated by persons present at the Vadodara programme, disclose the commission of under the provisions of the ."
On the argument that victims voluntarily attended the Vadodara programme, the Court noted:
"the allegation is that they were called to Vadodara under the pretext of attending a meeting of the Primary Health Centre. Therefore, merely because they attended the programme and accepted the meal would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that there was no in securing their attendance at the said event."
and Sanction Contentions Rejected
Addressing the petitioner's argument that the complainant had no standing to file a complaint on behalf of others, the Court relied on the 's decision in , which held that "any person" aggrieved by an is entitled to lodge a complaint before the police to achieve the object and purpose of anti-conversion legislation.
Similarly, the Court rejected the sanction argument, noting that the District Magistrate, Anand had accorded sanction under on , prior to filing of the charge-sheet.
The Final Verdict
The Court concluded that the case did not fall within any of the categories formulated by the in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction for . The petition was dismissed, though the Court clarified that the applicant remains at liberty to raise all permissible contentions before the learned Trial Court, which shall consider them independently without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
The ruling underscores that at the stage, courts examine only whether allegations and investigation material disclose commission of a cognizable offence—not whether prosecution will ultimately succeed at trial. The case will now proceed before the .
