Allahabad High Court Rules That Unlawful Religious Conversion is a Serious Offense and Cannot Be Quashed Based on Settlement

The Allahabad High Court recently addressed the gravity of unlawful religious conversions, underscoring that such offenses are of a serious nature and cannot be dismissed merely on the basis of a settlement between the involved parties. This stance was articulated in the case of Taufik Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Another, where the court deliberated on the implications of quashing legal proceedings in instances involving severe allegations.

The case originated from an FIR lodged on June 7, 2021, by a Hindu woman against three individuals: Rahul alias Mohd. Ayan, Taufik Ahmad (the applicant), and Mohd. Riyaz. The complainant recounted that her acquaintance with Rahul began on Facebook, where he misrepresented himself as a Hindu. Over the course of a year, their interactions intensified, culminating in Rahul's proposal for marriage. Trusting his intentions, she agreed, leading to her relocation to Nawabnagar, Rampur. It was during her six-month stay there that she discovered Rahul's true religious identity. Upon expressing her reluctance to marry him, she alleged that Rahul, in collusion with the other accused, subjected her to physical assault and sexual violence. She further asserted that Rahul had a modus operandi of enticing Hindu women via social media platforms for conversion purposes. Her statements, recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), corroborated these allegations.

Following a thorough investigation, a charge sheet was filed in May 2021. Subsequently, in March 2023, the parties reached a compromise. Leveraging this settlement, Taufik Ahmad petitioned the High Court to quash the ongoing proceedings. However, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA), Pramod Kumar Singh, opposed this plea, emphasizing that certain offenses, by their very nature, are non-compoundable due to their severity and the broader societal impact they entail.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, presiding over the bench, underscored that while the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings, especially in non-compoundable offenses, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and sparingly. The court highlighted that the primary objectives in considering such quashing are to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the misuse of the judicial process.

Delving deeper into the nature of the offenses in question, the court observed that crimes like rape profoundly violate a woman's dignity and honor, inflicting deep psychological scars and societal stigma. Such offenses are not merely personal disputes but are affronts to societal values and the collective conscience. The court asserted that permitting the quashing of proceedings in such cases, based solely on a compromise, would undermine the gravity of the offense and could set a precarious precedent.

Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of unlawful religious conversions, emphasizing that such acts disrupt societal harmony and infringe upon the constitutional right to freedom of religion. The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, was enacted to curb such malpractices and ensure that individuals can freely profess and practice their religion without coercion. The court noted that frequent interference in prosecutions at the initial stages under this Act could impede its objectives and allow the perpetuation of malpractices it seeks to eliminate.

In light of these considerations, the court concluded that offenses of this magnitude cannot be treated as mere personal disputes amenable to settlement between parties. The broader implications on societal values, public interest, and the rule of law necessitate that such cases be adjudicated upon their merits, ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. Consequently, the court dismissed the quashing petition filed by Taufik Ahmad, reinforcing the principle that serious offenses, especially those that have far-reaching societal implications, cannot be nullified merely on the basis of a compromise between the involved parties.

This judgment serves as a significant reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that individual settlements do not overshadow the collective interests of society. It underscores the importance of addressing serious offenses through the judicial process, thereby maintaining public confidence in the legal system and deterring potential offenders from engaging in activities that threaten societal harmony and individual dignity.