Shamli Police have registered an FIR against six social-media users, including an advocate, for allegedly circulating "misleading and factless" information claiming that the Allahabad High Court had rebuked Shamli Police during proceedings concerning Ayush Malik, who is at the center of a religious conversion-related case.

It may be noted that on September 16, the Allahabad HC set at liberty a 31-year-old Malik after he told the Court that he had voluntarily embraced Islam and alleged that his father subsequently subjected him to threats and unlawful confinement.

The FIR has been registered under Section 353(2) BNS at Kotwali Shamli Police Station on September 16 following a complaint by Sub-Inspector Mohd Jahangir.

The six persons/accounts named in the FIR are Karishma Aziz, Nikhat Ali (@INikhatAli), The Muslim (@TheMuslimSphere), Wasim Akram Tyagi (@WasimAkramTyagi), Syed Kaif Hasan (@kaifsyedhasan) and Nadeem Saifi.

According to the FIR, the accused persons, including Advocate Syed Kaif Hasan, allegedly circulated information on X and Facebook stating that the Allahabad High Court had "फटकार लगाई गई है" (rebuked) Shamli Police.

The FIR describes the information as "भ्रामक एवं तथ्यहीन" (misleading and factless).

According to the police version, Ayush Malik and his father were produced before the Allahabad High Court in compliance with the Court's order. The FIR specifically states that the High Court had not required the police to file any counter-affidavit/reply affidavit, and that no such affidavit had been filed by the police.

The FIR further states that the matter concerned a dispute between the father and son, in which the Allahabad High Court had passed an order.

It alleges that by "तोड़-मरोड़कर प्रस्तुत करते हुए" (distorting and presenting) the High Court's decision, misleading/false information was being circulated on social media, which was capable of affecting public peace.

The police have alleged that the act constitutes a punishable offence under Section 353(2) BNS.

The FIR also records the background of the Ayush Malik case. According to the police, on June 6, 2026, Devraj Malik, father of Ayush Malik, submitted a complaint at Kotwali Shamli alleging that Chandni Qureshi, her father and other family members had got his son Ayush Malik converted to Islam.

The complaint further alleged that Chandni Qureshi and her family members were threatening Ayush Malik and his wife and asking them to accept Islam and forcibly transfer their property in their names.

On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered at Kotwali Shamli under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 61(2), 308(5) and 351(3) BNS, along with Sections 3/5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.

Chandni Qureshi and her father, Islam Qureshi, were arrested and sent to jail on June 7. They were subsequently granted bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Shamli at Kairana, on July 24, 2026.

The police FIR states that on September 9, Sultan Qari, describing himself as a friend of Ayush Malik, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking directions for Ayush Malik to be produced before the Court, for his statement to be recorded and for him to be permitted to live independently.

The FIR records that the Allahabad High Court, by its order dated September 9, directed the Superintendent of Police, Shamli, to produce Ayush Malik before the Court on September 16.

Accordingly, Ayush Malik was produced before the Allahabad High Court on September 16.

The police press note states that after hearing the respective sides of Ayush Malik and his father, the High Court granted Ayush Malik the freedom to go anywhere and reside anywhere according to his own इच्छा (wish).

The police have specifically denied the suggestion that the High Court had reprimanded them during the proceedings.

The FIR states that the police had produced Ayush Malik and his father in compliance with the Allahabad High Court's order. It further states:

"माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा पुलिस की ओर से किसी प्रतिशपथपत्र/जवाबी हलफनामे को दाखिल करने की अपेक्षा नहीं की गई थी तथा न ही पुलिस द्वारा कोई प्रतिशपथपत्र/जवाबी हलफनामा दाखिल किया गया है।" [The High Court neither required any counter-affidavit/reply affidavit from the police nor did the police file any such affidavit]

The police have alleged that the High Court's decision was being presented by distorting its contents and that the resulting information was 'false' and capable of affecting public peace.

Shamli Police, in its press note, appealed to the public not to treat any information, post or video circulated on social media as true without verification, and not to further circulate it.

The police urged people to avoid misleading, fake, or factless posts about criminal incidents, stating that such material can create unnecessary confusion and rumors.

The police advised the public to rely on information issued through police or authorized social media handles for accurate, verified information about any incident.