MP High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Under Anti-Conversion Law, Says Minor's Statement Prima Facie Implicates Accused
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings against one Hemraj Tailor for allegedly forcing a family to convert to Islam under Sections 3 and 5 of the MP Freedom of Religion Act and Section 506 IPC. The bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatti observed,"Looking to the seriousness of the allegations made in the petition regarding pressurizing...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings against one Hemraj Tailor for allegedly forcing a family to convert to Islam under Sections 3 and 5 of the MP Freedom of Religion Act and Section 506 IPC.
The bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatti observed,
"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, I am satisfied that continuation of proceedings pursuant to the FIR against the present petitioner cannot be considered as abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice for the reason that after investigation, chargsheet is filed against the present petitioner on the basis of material on record".
The petitioner had approached the Court claiming that there was no evidence linking him to the alleged crime. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the charges merely suggested that he had motivated the complainant's husband to convert to Islam, without providing any evidence of direct involvement in the conversion of the complainant or her minor son.
The petitioner contended that the sections in the FIR were invoked without substantiation and that the case lacked prima facie merit.
The counsel for the State opposed the plea, highlighting statements recorded during the investigation, including those of the complainant's minor son, which implicated the petitioner. The counsel argued that the investigation was complete and that the chargesheet was filed based on sufficient material to sustain the allegations.
The bench observed that there was prima facie material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence. It noted that the statements of the complainant and her minor son specifically mentioned the petitioner's role in pressuring the complainant's family.
The bench relied on the case of Neeharika Infrastructure v State of Maharashtra, wherein the Supreme Court cautioned the High Courts from passing orders not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be taken" till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, while not entertaining quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Following these guidelines, the bench emphasized that the question of the petitioner's involvement must be examined during the trial through cogent evidence. The court held that the petitioner would have the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses and present his defence. Therefore, the bench held that quashing of the proceedings would be premature at the time.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Hemraj Tailor v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-18258-2026
For Petitioner: Advocate Sandeep Kumar Sen
For State: Government Advocate Sunit Kapoor