Back
MP High Court Rejects Bid to Quash Anti-Conversion Case: Minor's Testimony Seals Fate
In a ruling that underscores the weight of witness statements in early-stage criminal probes, the has dismissed a petition by Hemraj Tailor seeking to quash proceedings against him under the state's anti-conversion law. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, in a single-bench order dated , found sufficient , particularly from a minor's testimony, to let the trial proceed before the .
From Family Ties to FIR: The Conversion Controversy Unravels
The case stems from Crime No. 481/2023 registered at Jeerapur police station in Rajgarh district. According to the FIR, Tailor allegedly motivated the complainant's husband to convert to Islam, pressuring the wife and their minor son to follow suit. Charges invoked include —prohibiting conversions through allurement, force, or undue influence—and . A chargesheet has since been filed, naming Tailor among the accused.
Tailor, described in the chargesheet as playing a motivational role in the husband's conversion, approached the High Court under —the provision akin to old Section 482 CrPC—to argue for dismissal of the case at this nascent stage.
Petitioner's Plea: 'Mere Allegations, No Direct Role'
Tailor's counsel, , contended that no concrete evidence linked his client to any direct conversion efforts, especially against the complainant or her son. He highlighted the lack of material beyond vague claims, urging the court to quash the FIR as baseless. Citing Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 and G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636, he invoked principles for exercising to prevent . An interim stay application was also pressed.
State's Counter: Chargesheet and Child's Statement Speak Volumes
Opposing fiercely, pointed to the completed investigation and chargesheet, buttressed by witness statements—including that of the complainant's minor son, Prince, recorded on . This testimony, the state argued, corroborated the FIR's allegations of Tailor's role in coercing the family. All factual disputes, they maintained, belonged at trial, not for High Court interference under Section 528 BNSS.
Parsing Precedents: When Take a Backseat
Justice Bhatt acknowledged the petitioner's cited authorities but pivoted to the Supreme Court's caution in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC OnLine SC 315). This precedent limits quashing at pre-trial stages where prima facie material exists, emphasizing that trials resolve credibility battles. The court dissected the MP Act's , alongside intimidation charges, finding them squarely applicable on the record.
As noted in contemporaneous reports, the bench stressed the
"seriousness of the allegations... regarding pressurizing the wife and son by the husband for conversion at the behest of present petitioner."
Court's Sharp Insights: Quotes That Cut to the Core
Key observations from the judgment illuminate the rationale:
"There is available on the record which clearly implicates the present petitioner in the offence in question. The statement of Prince - the minor son of the complainant which clearly implicates the petitioner in the offence in question."
"Looking to the seriousness of the allegations made in the petition regarding pressurizing the wife and son by the husband for conversion at the behest of present petitioner and on careful perusal of the material available on record..."
"Continuation of proceedings pursuant to the FIR against the present petitioner cannot be considered as of law or for the reason that after investigation, chargsheet is filed against the present petitioner on the basis of material on record."
"The question which is now raised by the petitioner... is required to be tested at the time of trial by leading cogent and convincing evidence."
No Quashing: Trial to Test the Truth
The petition was deemed "meritless" and dismissed, with the stay application also rejected. Proceedings in SC ATR No. 183/2025 before the Special Judge continue unabated. This decision reinforces judicial restraint in quashing FIRs post-chargesheet, particularly in sensitive anti-conversion cases where witness accounts—especially from minors—carry evidentiary heft. Future petitions under similar statutes may face steeper hurdles if investigations yield corroborative statements, signaling courts' preference for full trials over preemptive halts.
