# Aleena alias Aleena Parveen & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 539
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 3203 of 2026
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Tarun Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aleena-alias-aleena-parveen-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54455
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

4 All. Aleena alias Aleena Parveen & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
the circumstances, the instant matter is completely covered by the decision of this Court in
Talukdar as explained in Jatinder Singh and Poonam Chand Jain. The High Court was thus not
justified in holding the second complaint to be maintainable."

22. From perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subrata
Choudhury (supra) it emerges that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after placing reliance on the earlier
judgment of Samta Naidu and another vs. State of M.P. and another - 2020(5) SCC 378 has
held that there is no bar in the complainant moving the Magistrate again with a second complaint
on the same facts if the dismissal of the complaint was not on merit but on default of the
complainant to be present.

23. In the instant case admittedly the first complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.07.2025. The second application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
has been filed on 04.08.2025. Copy of the said complaint is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Perusal
of the said complaint specifically indicates that disclosure was made by the complainant of having
earlier filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but the same having been dismissed for
non-prosecution on 29.07.2025. Thus, the second complaint would clearly be maintainable keeping
in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Subrata Choudhury (supra)
and Samta Naidu (supra). Hence, the said ground is also rejected.

24. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 539
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 3203 of 2026
Alongwith
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4128 of 2026

Aleena alias Aleena Parveen & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the First Information Report registered against the petitioners u/ss. 3 and 5(1) of
the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, alleging attempted unlawful
conversion by undue influence and allurement, was liable to be quashed on the ground that it contained
general and omnibus allegations and lacked specific details regarding the alleged acts of the petitioners.

Headnotes
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 - ss. 3, 5(1) - Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - u/ss. 180 and 183 - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - s.
63(4)(c) - Unlawful conversion - Attempted conversion - FIR - Quashing of - Victim statement -
CCTV footage - Case diary - Investigation - Mala fide intention - Prima facie case - The
petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of F.I.R. dated 22.01.2026 registered at
Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad, u/ss. 3 and 5(1) of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 - The F.I.R. was lodged by brother of victim alleging
that the victim, a Class XII student, was being compelled by accused persons to wear a veil
(burqa) and to adopt Islam by exerting influence and inducement - The petitioners contended
that the allegations were vague, omnibus and based on suspicion, without disclosing any specific
date, time or place of alleged acts - It was further argued that the F.I.R. was lodged with mala
fide intention and for purpose of harassment - During investigation, the statements of victim
were examined by Court -The victim stated that the accused persons had compelled her to wear
a veil and attempted to persuade her to adopt Islam - The State/respondents argued that it is a
clear case for alleged offence and requires investigation by police.

Held: The Court notice from the Case Diary that the victim was caught on a Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV)
camera, located in an alley, where, she was forced to wear the veil (burqa) by the petitioner and the other coaccused, including petitioner who has withdrawn her writ petition - The CCTV camera was installed on the
premises of one Rajeev son of Mahipal - He had taken the data from the recorder into his mobile phone and
handed over the device to Police, along with a certificate dated 24.01.2026, u/s. 63(4)(c) of BSA, 2023, as the
person In-charge of device, where the video was recorded - There are lots of material in the Case Diary,
where the investigation still appears to be under progress - The details regarding the prosecution that appear
and the materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose a case that requires to be thoroughly
investigated - The submissions advanced by learned Counsel for petitioners that it is a mala fide FIR, is
absolutely not borne out by the record - There is no FIR earlier lodged that it was the third respondent who
was stalking or harassing petitioner or had proposed to her - Quite apart, the stand of victim before the
learned Judicial Magistrate cannot be trashed - It carries all the necessary facts, which would prima facie
attract the provisions of ss. 3 and 5(1) of Act of 2021 - Whether the petitioners' acts constitute allurement or
undue influence are questions premature to be examined in a petition to quash the FIR - Accordingly, both the
petitions dismissed, interim order vacated. [Paras 14, 16 to 19] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

List of Keywords
First Information Report; Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021; Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Unlawful conversion; Attempted
conversion; General and omnibus allegations of conversion; Date, time, place not specified; Principal of
College; Concocted story; Vengeance; Psychological disturbance; Mala Fide; Case Diary; Statement of victim;
Violation of provision of Act, 2021; Coaching classes; Compel to wear burqa and accept Islam; Conspiracy;
CCTV camera; Prima facie disclose a case that requires to be thoroughly investigated; Stalking; Harassing;
Undue Influence; Allurement; Interdict investigation; Interim stay vacated; Writ petitions dismissed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 3203 of 2026

Connected with other matter
4 All. Aleena alias Aleena Parveen & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 4128 of 2026)
From the First Information Report dated 22.01.2026 in Case Crime No. 21 of 2026, Police Station Bilari,
District Moradabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Petitioner(s):
Shiv Shankar Mishra

Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Chandra Vijai Singh, Shashi Shekhar Tiwari

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This judgment will dispose of the motion to admit the present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
and the connected Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4128 of 2026 to hearing, both of which arise
out of a common First Information Report giving rise to crimes, that are being investigated
together.

2. This writ petition was initially instituted by two petitioners, to wit, Aleena alias Aleena
Parveen and Shabiya, seeking to quash the First Information Report1 dated 22.01.2026, giving rise
to Case Crime No. 21 of 2006, under Sections 3 and 5(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 20212, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad. The
connected writ petition, being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4128 of 2026, also impugns the
same FIR.

3. When this petition came up first before a Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble
Rajiv Gupta and Hon'ble Achal Sachdev, JJ., the first petitioner, Aleena alias Aleena Parveen
withdrew the writ petition, whereas, the second petitioner, Shabiya pressed it. Their Lordships, vide
order dated 12.02.2026, while dismissing this writ petition at the instance of Aleena alias Aleena
Parveen as withdrawn, issued notice pending admission to the respondents and granted stay of
arrest to the second petitioner, Shabiya. The connected writ petition came up before us on
30.03.2026. It was connected to the leading petition, albeit with an incorrect number, later on
corrected, wherein, no interim order was passed. Both the petitions have now come up for
admission.

4. Heard Mr. Shiv Shanker Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the motion
to admit this petition to hearing, Mr. Chandra Vijai Singh, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent no. 3 and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of the State. Mr. Tiwari has placed the Case Diary before us, but not filed any
counter affidavit.

5. Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate, has been heard in support of the connected writ
petition, where, Mr. Chandra Vijai Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3,
whereas Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari has been heard on behalf of the State. Here too, the Case Diary
has been carefully perused.
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. According to FIR, lodged by respondent no. 3, who is the brother of the victim, it is said
that his sister is a student of Class XII, who goes to take tuitions to the Shahukunj Colony,
Moradabad. At the tuition classes, other girls also read along with the victim. These girls are
Muslims, and they, by alluring his sister, compel her to wear a veil (burqa). They also compel her
to accept their religion, that is to say, Islam. Amongst these girls, one is Aleena alias Aleena
Parveen, a resident of Village Rustamnagar, Sahaspur, Bilari, Moradabad, besides four other
students, whose names are Malishka, Shabiya, Riyasha and Jauhara. The informant says, in the
closing lines, that he suspects some deep conspiracy behind this activity, which should be
thoroughly investigated. The said FIR was registered on 22.01.2026 at 11:30 ante meridiem at
Police Station Bilari, Moradabad, under Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Act of 2021.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argues that the impugned FIR carries general and
omnibus allegations of conversion against the petitioners, without specifying any date, time and
place of specific acts done to that end. It is urged that the impugned FIR is based on the first
informant's imagination. It is for this reason that he has not mentioned details of the name and age
of the accused.

8. It is urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner in the leading petition that respondent no. 3
was harassing Aleena alias Aleena Parveen and used to follow her out of college. On 17.01.2026,
the said respondent stopped her and proposed. When this happened, the petitioner as well as the
other students, who are co-accused, informed the third respondent's sister and also made a
complaint to the Principal of the College. It is for this reason that the third respondent has lodged
the impugned FIR with a concocted story, that has not a grain of truth to it. It has been lodged for
the sole purpose of wreaking vengeance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also points out that the
petitioner is a young girl, aged just 18 years and a student of Class XII. She had to write her Class
XII examinations, that would commence on 18.01.2026. She is unable to concentrate on her studies
on account of the mammoth distraction, which this FIR brings in the form of severe psychological
disturbance. It is particularly emphasised that there has been no conversion or attempted conversion
of the victim to Islam, and the impugned FIR has been lodged mala fide.

9. Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the connected matter has
pressed his motion on similar grounds and added that pending admission, co-accused Shabiya has
been granted interim stay of arrest. He further argues that the thrust of the allegations are against
co-accused Aleena alias Aleena Parveen, who has not pressed the petition, and not against the
petitioner in this matter or the others. He has drawn our attention to the statement of the victim,
Kumari Mahima, recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20233 to
submit that she has said that she is friends with Aleena, and the others, that is to say, the petitioner
here, besides the three others, are Aleena's friends. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has
endeavoured to impress that whatever was the act, that led to the crime being registered, is
referable to Aleena alone, and not the petitioner here.

10. Mr. Chandra Vijai Singh, learned Counsel for respondent no. 3 in both the petitions and
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Staterespondents have opposed the motion to admit the writ petitions to hearing. They submit that a
clear case for the offence charged is disclosed, which requires thorough investigation by the Police.
4 All. Aleena alias Aleena Parveen & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543

11. Since the FIR giving rise to the present crime alleges an attempted unlawful conversion of
the victim, Kumari Mahima, in violation of the provision of Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Act of 2021,
with a very brief description of the occurrence, we summoned the Case Diary and perused the
same.

12. The statement of the victim recorded by the Police under Section 180 BNSS, and that
before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS have been perused by us. We think
that the victim's statement under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS are essential in order to decide
whether a case worth admitting the writ petitions and granting interim stay of arrest pending
hearing of the writ petitions or quashing the FIR is made out. The victim, in her statement under
Section 180 BNSS, says that she is a student of Class XII. The incident is one dated 20.12.2025,
when she, along with her five friends - all Muslims, went to attend their coaching classes at
Shahukunj Colony, located in Town Bilai, Moradabad. On the fateful day, they had finished
attending classes at one coaching center, and the other had a holiday. Her friends invited the victim
over to some snacks in a hotel. Aleena, according to the victim, had brought along a veil (burqa).
Aleena asked the victim to wear the burqa, which she declined. Thereupon, all the accused forced it
down her neck. Then, they said that somebody was approaching and pushed her behind a tree. They
then made her wear the burqa all the way. All the accused took her along for a meal/refreshment. It
is also stated by the victim, in the statement under Section 180 BNSS, that all these friends of hers
bring along non-vegetarian food and allure her to eat it. When she refuses to partake of it, they tell
her to eat the gravy. It is next said that Aleena asks her to adopt Islam as her faith. The victim has
said that Aleena was her friend, and the other co-accused were friends of Aleena. Their names were
Zehra, Rimsha, Shabiya and Malishka. The victim, in her statement under Section 183 BNSS
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, has substantially said that on 20.12.2025, there was a
holiday for their coaching institute. Her friend Aleena, along with her friends, whom Aleena
wanted to be the victim's friends as well, made her wear a veil (burqa). All of them then proceeded
to a certain Anand Restaurant and ate Spring Roll, Chowmein, besides partaking of Pepsi Cola. The
five girls had earlier also told her that their religion was good. The victim stated that she did not at
all tell her mother and father about it, because Aleena had forbidden her from doing so. The victim
said that Aleena was apparently trying to brainwash her. She said that she had lost her faculty to
think. The victim has candidly said that they never asked her to recite the kalma or fast. Aleena
would plan, together with the other four co-accused, and they would make the victim say that their
religion was good. They would tell her that Quran can be read in forty days. They would also tell
her that there was freedom in their religion. After wearing the veil (burqa), they could go anywhere.
It is then said in the statement that the victim told them that she too had complete freedom at home,
except indulging in any wrongdoing.

13. On 20.12.2025, Aleena went along with the victim and brought a veil (naqab) and a stole.
She had no money to pay for it, and therefore, asked the victim to pay, which she did, for
friendship's sake. She asked the victim to place the veil in her own bag, which she wold take back
from the victim the following day. They took the veil from the victim, together with the stole and
tied it to her face. The victim protested, but they would not listen. After making her wear the veil,
they took her to restaurant. The victim has said that she wants action to be taken against the
accused for attempting to convert her.
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. We notice from the Case Diary that the victim was caught on a Closed-Circuit Television
(CCTV) camera, located in an alley, where, she was forced to wear the veil (burqa) by the
petitioner and the other co-accused, including Aleena, who has withdrawn her writ petition. The
CCTV camera was installed on the premises of one Rajeev son of Mahipal. He had taken the data
from the recorder into his mobile phone and handed over the device to the Police, along with a
certificate dated 24.01.2026, under Sections 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as
the person In-charge of the device, where the video was recorded. There are lots of material in the
Case Diary, where the investigation still appears to be under progress. The details regarding the
prosecution that appear and the materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose a case
that requires to be thoroughly investigated. The submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the
petitioners that it is a mala fide FIR, is absolutely not borne out by the record. There is no FIR
earlier lodged that it was the third respondent who was stalking or harassing Aleena or had
proposed to her. Quite apart, the stand of the victim before the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot
be trashed. It carries all the necessary facts, which would prima facie attract the provisions of
Section 3 and 5(1) of the Act of 2021.

15. We must be alive to the situation that the Act of 2021 was enacted to curtail an emergent
situation in society, where, certain persons go about not professing or propagating their religion,
but thrusting it upon others in the belief which somehow makes it to their mind the religion they
believe in must be followed by others. If this kind of a trend comes to be seen amongst young
people, it is all the more disturbing. This is time in their lives when they should be thinking more
towards developing their skills in different fields of education and dedicate themselves in the
service of the society and the nation. The Act of 2021 was brought to curtail this emergent
mischief, which is heard from different quarters in the country these days, and, of which, we must
take judicial notice. 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.
This does not mean that false implications under a new statute are to be encouraged, but, at the
same time, the purpose, for which the statute has been enacted, cannot be subverted by snuffing out
prosecutions brought on tangible materials at the threshold.

16. A look at Section 3 of the Act of 2021 shows that there could be multiple grounds, on the
foot of which, conversion from one religion to another by others becomes a crime. Amongst them,
figures undue influence and allurement. Allurement has been defined under Section 2(a) of the Act
of 2021, under its three sub-clauses in the widest terms. Whether the petitioners' acts constitute
allurement or undue influence are questions premature to be examined in a petition to quash the
FIR. As investigation proceeds and material surfaces, it would have to be seen in the first instance
by the investigator, and if one or more of the accused are charge-sheeted, by the Court, whether a
case is ultimately established.

17. In the totality of circumstances, we do not find it to be a fit case where we ought interdict
investigation and quash the impugned FIR.

18. In the result, both the petitions fail and are dismissed.

19. The interim order dated 12.02.2026 passed in the present petition is vacated.
4 All. Baba Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P.
545

20. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Principal
Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradeesh, Lucknow through the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow. Let this order be also communicated to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Moradabad and the Station House Officer, Police Station Bilari, Moradabad, both through the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 545
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

Jail Appeal No. 188 of 2021

Baba Vishwakarma ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the prosecution was able to establish guilt of the appellant for the offence under
S.304 IPC beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of testimony of PW-1 and medical evidence and whether the
sentence of life imprisonment awarded under S.304 (Part-I) IPC required modification in view of the fact that
no minimum sentence has been provided for the offence and having regard to the reformative theory of
punishment and doctrine of proportionality. (Paras 20, 22, 24, 32-34)

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S.304 - PW-1 is the mother of the deceased and an eye witness of the
occurrence - the incident occurred at about 8:00 p.m. in the night, when only PW-1, her
daughter (deceased) and the accused were present - PW-1 is the only possible eye witness -
there are no material contradictions in her testimony which go to the root of the prosecution
case and if some differences appear, they are minor in nature and same are bound to occur in
criminal cases - even if there is only one eyewitness, conviction can be based on such testimony
provided it is trustworthy and reliable - incident took place on the date, time and place
mentioned in the FIR - deceased died due to the injuries caused by the appellant and this fact
finds support from medical evidence - prosecution was able to establish guilt of appellant for the
aforesaid offence beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 22)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S.304 - Allegation regarding the character of PW-1 - accusedappellant has not produced any evidence in support of this contention - argument remains
unproved - even if the allegation regarding the character of PW-1 is accepted, it would in no way
affect the merits of the case. (Para 21)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S.304 - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder -
S.304 IPC does not prescribe any minimum punishment - discretion lies with the Court to award
a sentence proportionate to the circumstances of the case - sentencing is not rigid but
responsive to the gravity of the offence, the intention behind it, and the mitigating or
aggravating factors present - philosophy behind it is to distinguish the acts committed with
intention to cause death and those committed without such intention, thereby tailoring
punishment to culpability. (Para 24)