The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that allegations of religious conversion through allurement or undue influence under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, cannot be summarily dismissed at the FIR stage. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the statute - to curb coercive proselytization - demands thorough investigation where prima facie evidence exists, even if the allegations are contested.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a First Information Report (FIR) dated 22.01.2026, registered at Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad, under Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The FIR was lodged by the brother of a Class XII student, Kumari Mahima, alleging that she was subjected to unlawful attempts at religious conversion by her Muslim classmates, including the petitioners Aleena alias Aleena Parveen and Shabiya.
Key Facts
- The victim, Kumari Mahima, is a Hindu student enrolled in Class XII at a coaching institute in Shahukunj Colony, Moradabad.
- On 20.12.2025, after coaching hours, she was invited by five Muslim female classmates - including Aleena, Shabiya, Malishka, Riyasha, and Jauhara - to a meal at a restaurant.
- Aleena brought a veil (burqa) and a stole, and pressured the victim to wear it. When she refused, the group forcibly placed the veil over her head and neck.
- The group then took her behind a tree, insisted she wear the veil fully, and escorted her to Anand Restaurant where they consumed non-vegetarian food and soft drinks.
- The victim stated that Aleena repeatedly told her that Islam was a better religion, that the Quran could be read in forty days, and that wearing the veil granted freedom.
- Aleena asked the victim to pay for the veil, which she did out of friendship, and later retrieved it.
- The victim claimed she was afraid to tell her parents because Aleena had warned her against doing so.
- She stated she was never asked to recite the kalma or fast, but felt her ability to think independently was being eroded.
- A CCTV recording from a premises owned by Rajeev, son of Mahipal, captured the victim being forced to wear the veil. The video was handed over to police on 24.01.2026 under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
- The victim’s statement under Section 180 BNSS and Section 183 BNSS corroborated these events.
- The petitioner Aleena, aged 18, is also a Class XII student and denies any coercive intent, claiming the FIR is retaliatory due to a prior personal dispute.
Procedural History
- 20.12.2025: Alleged incident of attempted conversion occurs.
- 22.01.2026: FIR No. 21 of 2026 registered at Police Station Bilari under Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Act of 2021.
- 24.01.2026: CCTV footage handed over to police with certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
- 12.02.2026: Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Aleena alias Aleena Parveen as withdrawn; granted interim stay of arrest to Shabiya.
- 30.03.2026: Connected writ petition (No. 4128 of 2026) listed before the present Bench.
- 16.04.2026: Present judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
- Aleena and Shabiya argue the FIR is mala fide, fabricated to retaliate against Aleena for rejecting a marriage proposal by the victim’s brother on 17.01.2026.
- They claim no actual conversion occurred, no kalma was recited, and no religious rituals were performed.
- They assert the victim’s statements are inconsistent and that the FIR lacks specificity regarding time, place, and acts.
- Counsel for Shabiya argues the allegations primarily target Aleena, who has withdrawn her petition, and that Shabiya’s involvement is minimal.
For the Respondents
- The State and the complainant (victim’s brother) contend that the victim’s statements and CCTV footage establish a prima facie case of allurement and undue influence.
- The State argues the Act of 2021 was enacted to prevent coercive proselytization among minors and vulnerable youth.
- No counter-affidavit was filed, but the Case Diary was submitted and examined.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 21 of 2026 and cancellation of the interim stay of arrest granted to Shabiya. They also requested restoration of their right to pursue education without psychological harassment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an FIR under Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, alleging attempted conversion through allurement, can be quashed at the threshold on grounds of mala fide or lack of specificity, when prima facie evidence - including victim testimony and CCTV footage - exists.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioners relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra to argue that FIRs based on vague, general, or retaliatory allegations must be quashed to prevent abuse of process. They contended that the Act requires proof of actual conversion or direct inducement, and that mere social interaction, wearing of attire, or persuasive speech does not constitute allurement under Section 2(a). They emphasized the victim’s age, the absence of coercion to recite the kalma, and the lack of any prior complaint against the petitioners.
For the Respondent/State
The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, argued that the Act of 2021 is a social welfare statute designed to protect vulnerable minors from psychological manipulation. Counsel cited State of U.P. v. Shri Ram and Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India to highlight judicial recognition of covert proselytization as a threat to social harmony. They submitted that Section 2(a) defines allurement broadly to include “any gift, gratification, inducement, or promise of better lifestyle,” which encompasses the act of offering friendship, food, and religious persuasion in exchange for religious conformity. The CCTV footage and victim’s statement under Section 180 BNSS were presented as tangible evidence warranting investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by acknowledging the legislative intent behind the Act of 2021: to prevent the exploitation of minors and young persons through subtle, non-violent means of religious conversion. It noted that the statute was enacted in response to rising reports of coercive proselytization disguised as friendship or cultural assimilation.
"A statute, that is enacted to curtail an emergent mischief, if stopped in its tracks at the very early stages of its enforcement, would bog down the statute and frustrate its purpose."
The Court examined the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and found them consistent, detailed, and credible. The victim described a pattern of behavior - repeated invitations, pressure to wear the veil, consumption of non-vegetarian food, and persistent religious messaging - that went beyond casual friendship. The Court held that these acts, taken together, prima facie fall within the definition of “allurement” under Section 2(a) of the Act, which includes “any inducement by way of emotional or psychological influence.”
The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim of mala fide, noting the absence of any prior FIR or complaint against the complainant for stalking or harassment. It emphasized that allegations of retaliation, without documentary or corroborative evidence, cannot override the evidentiary value of a victim’s statement recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.
The Court further clarified that the determination of whether the acts constitute “undue influence” or “allurement” is a question of fact to be decided after investigation and trial, not at the stage of quashing an FIR. It cited K. Veeraswami v. Union of India to affirm that courts must not substitute their opinion for that of investigating agencies at the preliminary stage.
The Court also noted the evidentiary weight of the CCTV footage, which was lawfully collected and certified under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It held that the presence of such material precludes the invocation of Article 226 to stifle investigation.
The Verdict
The writ petitions were dismissed. The interim stay of arrest granted to Shabiya on 12.02.2026 was vacated. The investigation into FIR No. 21 of 2026 shall proceed without interference. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow; the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad; and the Station House Officer, Police Station Bilari, Moradabad, all through the Chief Judicial Magistrates concerned.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Investigation Cannot Be Stifled by Allegations of Mala Fide
- Practitioners must now demonstrate concrete, corroborative evidence of retaliatory intent to challenge an FIR under the Act of 2021.
- Mere assertion of personal dispute or unverified claims of harassment will not suffice to quash an FIR where victim testimony and digital evidence exist.
Allurement Under the Act Is Broadly Interpreted
- Acts such as offering food, friendship, emotional bonding, and religious persuasion to influence religious identity qualify as “allurement” under Section 2(a).
- No requirement exists for physical force, financial inducement, or formal conversion rituals to trigger prosecution.
CCTV and Victim Statements Carry Weight at Threshold Stage
- Video evidence certified under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is admissible for prima facie assessment.
- Statements recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS are entitled to significant weight and cannot be dismissed as unreliable without cross-examination.
The Act Protects Minors from Covert Proselytization
- Courts will not intervene to halt investigations where the victim is a minor and the alleged conduct involves psychological influence.
- The burden shifts to the accused to prove innocence during trial, not at the FIR stage.
Judicial Notice of Social Trends
- Courts may take judicial notice of societal patterns of covert religious conversion among youth.
- Statutes enacted to address emergent social harms are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality at the investigation stage.
