Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | W.P.(Crl.) No. 000123 – 2023 |
| Diary Number | 11952/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts in India |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms applicability of Section 4 special locus and quashing jurisprudence |
| Type of Law | Criminal; Constitutional (writ jurisdiction) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act restricts locus to the aggrieved person or close relatives, rendering FIRs by others non-est and abusing process. Subsequent FIRs for the same mass-conversion incident are barred by T.T. Antony’s principle. The Supreme Court may invoke Article 32 to quash criminal proceedings even after chargesheet if abuse of process and lack of credible material prevail. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
All investigations complete and chargesheets filed |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts in India (subordinate courts, High Courts) |
| Persuasive For | Trial courts and administrative authorities handling conversion matters |
| Overrules | Inconsistent High Court rulings on competence of informant under Section 4 |
| Distinguishes | Separate FIRs vs single-FIR principle for same incident; counter-cases allowed |
| Follows | T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala; Babubhai v. State of Gujarat |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that under the unamended U.P. Conversion Act, only the aggrieved person or close relatives may lodge an FIR under Section 4; others’ FIRs are non-est.
- Holds that subsequent FIRs for the same mass-conversion incident are barred by the T.T. Antony doctrine and constitute abuse of process.
- Confirms Supreme Court’s Article 32 jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings even after chargesheet where material lacks credibility.
- Affirms that multiple cyclostyled FIRs and statements undermine bona fides of investigation and warrant quashing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 4 unamended restricts informant locus to aggrieved person or specified relatives; FIR by others invalid.
- Abuse of process and inherent-powers jurisprudence (Bhajan Lal) permits quashing where continuation is unjust.
- Multiple FIRs for same incident violate single-FIR rule (T.T. Antony, Babubhai); subsequent informations fall under Section 162.
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable for quashing criminal proceedings.
- Filing of chargesheet does not oust High Court’s power to quash when material on record fails to disclose a credible offence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- FIR 224/2022 lodged by a person not competent under Section 4; non-est ab initio.
- Subsequent FIRs (54/23, 55/23, 60/23) are hit by T.T. Antony and Babubhai principles on multiple FIRs.
- Cyclostyled statements, affidavits and delay of 9+ months show mala fide and abuse of process.
- Article 32 writ is maintainable and chargesheet does not bar quashing.
Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh)
- Police duty to register FIR on information under Section 154 CrPC; Section 4 not injunctive.
- FIRs disclose cognizable offences under U.P. Conversion Act and IPC; credible materials in chargesheet.
- Section 4 merely enables certain persons, does not restrict police power.
- No basis for quashing once investigation complete and chargesheet filed; courts should not interfere at investigation stage (Neeharika).
Factual Background
A series of FIRs were lodged under IPC and the U.P. Conversion Act arising from:
- An alleged mass conversion of 90 Hindus at the Evangelical Church, Fatehpur on 14.04.2022 (FIR 224/22; 54/23; 55/23; 60/23).
- A single alleged conversion on 25.12.2021 (FIR 47/23).
- An alleged assault and unlawful conversion attempt on 10.12.2023 (FIR 538/23).
All investigations concluded with chargesheets before their quashing was sought.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3 prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement; punishable under Section 5.
- Section 4 (unamended) restricts informants to the aggrieved person, parents, siblings or blood/adoptive relatives for offences under Section 3.
- Section 5 prescribes punishment for contraventions of Section 3.
- Section 7 declares all offences cognizable, non-bailable and triable by Sessions Court.
- Interplay: Special-law provisions govern who may initiate prosecution and override CrPC’s general first-information regime.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Enforcement of special-law locus under Section 4 unamended
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Bhajan Lal (1992) and T.T. Antony (2001) on quashing powers
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Aligns divergent High Court views on informant competence and multiple FIRs