# Durga Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 647
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 19916 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/durga-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53431
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 154 & 482 - U.P.
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Religious
Conversion Act, 2021 - Sections 2, 3, 3(1),
4, 5, 5(1), 7, 10 & 11 - Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 170,
173, 175 & 528 - Indian Penal Code,
1860-
Sections
419,
420
&
508
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 25 &
25(1) - U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Act,
2024 - Sections 4 - Application u/s 482 of
Cr.P.C.
-
assailing
the
entire
Criminal
Proceedings - based on confidential information,
alleging that some individuals were inducing
people to convert to Christianity by offering
money
and
medical
treatment
-
Police
conducted raid - Search & Seizure operation -
SHO lodged FIR - several individuals were
apprehended, and materials related to religious
conversion were seized
- St.ments were
recorded - charge sheet - The applicants taken
plea that the S.H.O. is not an "aggrieved
person" as defined by the Act, which limits the
term to victims or their close relatives, and thus
the FIR and subsequent proceedings are void ab
initio - The core issue before the court is
"whether the FIR registered by the Station
House Officer under the U.P. Prohibition of
Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 is valid,
given the term "any aggrieved person" in
Section 4 of the Act - court finds that, the 2024
amendment to the Act and relevant provisions
of the BNSS, 2023 further clarified and
expanded the scope of informants - court
applying
purposive
interpretation
and
considering constitutional safeguards under
Article 25, held that, (i) the term "any aggrieved
person" includes the S.H.O., especially in cases
of mass conversions involving coercion or fraud
- and (ii) the FIR disclosed cognizable offences
and did not warrant quashing under the Bhajan
Lal guidelines - Accordingly, the application is
dismissed - with liberty to the applicants to raise
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
all defenses during trial, and since till date
applicant has not been arrested by the police as
such he shall not be taken into custody unless
he fails to cooperate with proceedings. (Para -
10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Durga Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
647
the liberty available under para-10 of the
judgement and order dated 21.03.2025 by
way of invoking the provisions available in
Criminal Procedure Code, which will not
be applicable when the applicant has been
implicated in pursuance to sections 3/7 of
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which is
a Special Act to be followed, wherein the
specific provisions are available and the
matter has to be dealt in accordance with
the same.

14. In the light of observation as made
above along with the dictum pronounced
by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vasanti
Dubey (supra), order dated 02.04.2025
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kasganj is hereby set-aside;
once it has been crystal clearly proves that
there is hardly any sanction of prosecution
in pursuance to section 11 of Essential
Commodities Act available, no purpose
will be served to send the matter back to
learned court concerned and as such entire
proceedings arising out of Case Crime
No.440 of 2021 instituted as Case No.9794
of 2024 (State vs. Rajkumar) is hereby
quashed and set-aside.

15. The instant application u/s 528
BNSS stands allowed accordingly.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 647
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 19916 of 2024
Connected With
Application U/S 482 No. 32200 of 2024

Durga Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Abhishek Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 154 & 482 - U.P.
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Religious
Conversion Act, 2021 - Sections 2, 3, 3(1),
4, 5, 5(1), 7, 10 & 11 - Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 170,
173, 175 & 528 - Indian Penal Code,
1860-
Sections
419,
420
&
508
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 25 &
25(1) - U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Act,
2024 - Sections 4 - Application u/s 482 of
Cr.P.C.
-
assailing
the
entire
Criminal
Proceedings - based on confidential information,
alleging that some individuals were inducing
people to convert to Christianity by offering
money
and
medical
treatment
-
Police
conducted raid - Search & Seizure operation -
SHO lodged FIR - several individuals were
apprehended, and materials related to religious
conversion were seized
- St.ments were
recorded - charge sheet - The applicants taken
plea that the S.H.O. is not an "aggrieved
person" as defined by the Act, which limits the
term to victims or their close relatives, and thus
the FIR and subsequent proceedings are void ab
initio - The core issue before the court is
"whether the FIR registered by the Station
House Officer under the U.P. Prohibition of
Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 is valid,
given the term "any aggrieved person" in
Section 4 of the Act - court finds that, the 2024
amendment to the Act and relevant provisions
of the BNSS, 2023 further clarified and
expanded the scope of informants - court
applying
purposive
interpretation
and
considering constitutional safeguards under
Article 25, held that, (i) the term "any aggrieved
person" includes the S.H.O., especially in cases
of mass conversions involving coercion or fraud
- and (ii) the FIR disclosed cognizable offences
and did not warrant quashing under the Bhajan
Lal guidelines - Accordingly, the application is
dismissed - with liberty to the applicants to raise
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
all defenses during trial, and since till date
applicant has not been arrested by the police as
such he shall not be taken into custody unless
he fails to cooperate with proceedings. (Para -
10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs Pure
Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & ors.- 2007
(8) SCC 705

2. U.O.I. Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma & ors.- AIR
(2020) SC 5274

3. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh Vs St. of Bihar -
1986 PLJR 1038

4. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal - 1952 Suppl. (1)
SCC 335

5. Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs St. of U.P. -2022
LiveLaw (SC) 993

6. Jose Papachen & anr.Vs St. of U.P. - Criminal
Appeal No.877 of 2023,

7. Bashir Vs St. of Kerala - (2004) 3 SCC 609,

8. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal & ors.- 1992 Suppl.
(1) SCC 335.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned Additional Advocate
General, assistant by learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondent, and perused the record.

2. In the present proceeding, the
applicant
has
assailed
the
criminal
proceedings arising out of Case Crime
No.335 of 2023, under Section 3 and 5(1)
of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful
Religious
Conversion
Act,
20211, read with Section 419, 420, 508 IPC
registered at Police Station- Kerakat,
District
Jaunpur2
and
impugned
cognizance order dated 6.1.2024 passed by
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-III, Jaunpur.

2.1 The prosecution's stems from
the fact that upon receipt of confidential
information in the village Vikrampur, at the
church, some men and women were luring
innocent people from the local and distant
areas into religious conversion by offering
money and medical treatment. The stationin-charge, his team, and the informant
proceeded towards Vikrampur Church. As
they reached the church, some people were
sitting near the stage, while others were
seated in front. A person near the
microphone was persuading the innocent
audience to adopt the religion of Lord Jesus
by tempting them with money and free
medical treatment.

2.2 As the police entered the
church, the people sitting in front of the
stage began to flee upon seeing the police.
The police apprehended three men and one
woman on the spot, while the person
speaking on the microphone escaped.

2.3
Upon
questioning
the
apprehended individuals and searching
them, they identified themselves as (i)
Govind Lal, son of Lal Bahadur, resident of
Sihauli, Kerakat Police Station, Jaunpur
District, (ii) Jitendra Kumar, son of Lotu
Ram, resident of Vikrampur, Kerakat
Police Station, Jaunpur District,
(iii)
Surendra Gautam, son of (Late) Jayram
Gautam,
resident
of
Pyarepur,
Sarai
Khwaja Police Station, Jaunpur District,
and (iv) Smt. Usha Devi, wife of Shravan
Kumar, resident of Vikrampur, Kerakat
Police Station, Jaunpur District.

2.4 The premises was searched,
various materials related to religious
5 All. Durga Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
649
conversion were recovered, including: nine
large Bibles, one small Bible, one "Gutka"
(holy scripture) of the Bible, one diary
containing records of different illnesses,
their
treatments,
and
feedback
on
recoveries, ninety-eight white posters for
Lord Jesus' preaching, one hundred thirtyeight pink pamphlets for "Satsang Prayers",
two hundred ninety-three pamphlets titled
"Birth, Life, Death- What Next," thirty-six
pamphlets on "Five Steps of Faith",
fourteen pamphlets titled "How to Seek
God", twenty-four white envelopes with
names written on them, thirty-two plain
white envelopes, one "Dholak" (traditional
drum), one harmonium, two microphone
stands,
six
microphone
cables,
four
microphones, one sound mixer machine,
one selfie stand, one steel speech stand, one
glass speech stand with a glass rack, one
pen drive, one mobile connector cable, one
camcorder microphone, and two sound
machine connectors.

2.5 When questioned about the
seized religious conversion materials and
the escaped speaker, all four detained
individuals, separately and collectively,
revealed that the person who fled was
Shravan Kumar, son of Lotu Ram, resident
of Vikrampur village. He is the husband of
Usha Devi and the brother of Govind Lal.
Shravan Kumar is also the pastor of this
church.

2.6 They further confessed that
they, along with others, were involved in
persuading local and distant people to
convert to Christianity by offering money
and free medical aid. They also stated that
their leader is Durga Yadav, son of Sampat
Yadav,
resident
of
Bhullan
Deeh,
Chandvak Police Station, Jaunpur District,
who is also the pastor of the Bhullan Deeh
Church, and instructed them to convert
innocent people and provided money and
religious conversion-related materials.

2.7
Based
on
aforesaid
allegations, impugned FIR was registered
by S.H.O. in the interest of maintaining
public order and health, and during
investigation the statements of the victims-
Tufani Ram, Lalman Chauhan, Nirmala
Devi,
Amit
Kumar
Vishwakarma,
Mahendra
Saroj,
Sandhya
Devi,
Chandrawati
Devi,
Gautam
Yadav,
Subhash Singh, Balwant Rajbhar, Roshan
Khairwar,
have
been
recorded,
and
accordingly, the charge sheet was filed
against applicant Durga Yadav and other
co-accused.

3. For ready reference, the statement
of one of the victims- Gautam Yadav, son
of Shri Sangram Yadav, a resident of
Village Mahadeva, Police Station Kerakat,
District Jaunpur- has been reproduced
below:

"I have observed that people
from my village and nearby villages, as
well as those from other police station
jurisdictions, are being lured with money,
medicines, treatment, and other benefits.
They are also being frightened in the name
of
protection
from
disasters
and
pandemics, and are being enticed to believe
in Jesus Christ and adopt Christianity.

This work is being carried out by
Shravan Kumar, a pastor and son of
Loturam, resident of Vikrampur, Police
Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur, along
with other members of his team, and
Jitendra Ram, son of Kailash Chandra
Ram, resident of Thunhi, Police Station
Chandwak, District Jaunpur, along with
their associate Ajay Bhardwaj, son of
Katwaru
Bhardwaj,
resident
of
Kachhawan, Police Station Chandwak,
District Jaunpur.
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

They are engaged in converting
people from their own and neighboring
villages falling under the jurisdictions of
Kerakat and Chandwak police stations.
Shravan Kumar and Jitendra Ram have
also constructed churches in the villages of
Vikrampur and Thunhi, where they conduct
conversions under the guise of prayer and
healing. They also distribute various books
and pamphlets.

These
individuals,
including
Shravan Kumar, Jitendra Ram, and others,
collectively harassed and pressured me
through inducements and fear to adopt
Christianity,
which
left
me
deeply
frightened. All the materials used for
religious conversion are provided by
Durga Yadav of Bhullandih, Police Station
Chandwak. The conversions are conducted
under his instructions."

4. The core issue before the Court is
whether the registration of impugned FIR
by the S.H.O. renders the entire criminal
proceedings void ab initio in reference to
the expression "any aggrieved person"
employed in Section 4 of Uttar Pradesh
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Religious
Conversion Act, 2021.

5. Shri Abhishek Singh Yadav, learned
counsel for the applicant inter alia stated
that the criminal proceeding qua applicant
is not maintainable as the registration of the
impugned FIR is in the teeth of Section 4 of
Act 2021. The S.H.O. P.S. Kerakat is not
an "aggrieved person" enabling him to
register the FIR. The "aggrieved person"
could only be a victim, his/ her parent,
brother, sister, or any other person who is
related to him/her by birth, marriage or
adoption may lodge an FIR of such
conversion
which
contravenes
the
provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 2021.
Section 4 of the Act, 2021 has reproduced
herein below:

"4. Person to Competent to
Lodge First Information Report- Any
aggrieved person, his/her parents, brother,
sister, or any other person who is related to
him/her by blood, marriage or adoption
may lodge a First Information Report of
such conversion which contravenes the
provisions of Section 3."

5.1 He next submitted that on
plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2021,
no offence under Section 5(i) of the Act has
been made out against the applicant. The
complainant is not the aggrieved person
within the meaning of section 4 of Act,
2021. The amendment brought vide Gazette
Notification dated 06.08.2024 titled U.P.
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion (Amendment) Act, 20243 shall not
applicable qua applicant in the given facts
and circumstances. The expression "any
aggrieved person" under Section 4 of the Act
2021 is qualified and limited by the
subsequent
enumeration
of
specific
relationships- namely, the person's parents,
siblings, or blood relatives by marriage or
adoption. Any interpretation that extends the
term beyond this statutory scope would
render the legislative intent redundant. The
ingredients of Sections 419, 420, 508 IPC
read with Sections 3 and 5(i) of the Act, 2021
are not made out against the applicant on
examination of the statement of victim and
relied
upon
Chairman,
Indore
Vikas
Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke &
Chemicals Ltd. And others4, Union of India
v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and others5,
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh v. State of Bihar6,
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal7, Ramesh
Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P.8, Jose
Papachen and another v. State of U.P.9,
Bashir v. State of Kerala10.
5 All. Durga Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
651

6. On this limited issue, A.C.S.
(Home) U.P. Lucknow was directed to file
an affidavit clarifying as to who shall be
considered as aggrieved person- to register
the FIR within the meaning of Section 4 of
the Act, 2021.

7. In response, the A.C.S. (Home) filed
an affidavit inter alia stating, (i) the word
"any aggrieved person" has not been defined
in the definition clause under Section 2 of the
Act
of
2021,
therefore
it
shall
be
harmoniously read with Section 7 of the Act
of 2021 along with provisions of Chapter
XIII of B.N.S.S. 2023, (ii) the desired
objective of the Act, 2021 would be defeated
if the local S.H.O.- responsible to maintain
law and order of the area - is denuded from
the power to register the FIR, and the Act
shall be a dead letter, (iii) the word "any
aggrieved person" is an expression of wide
import and ought to be construed to cover
any "informant", who possesses information
of commission of cognizance offence, (iv) in
case of unlawful mass conversion, the
purpose of the Act, 2021 would fail if strict
interpretation is construed for interpretation
of Section 4, (v) the applicant's case does not
fall in the category in any of the provisions
contained in Chapter XXXVII of BNSS,
2023, and (vi) keeping in view the sensitivity
and gravity of the unlawful religious
conversion and its impact on the society, the
state government has brought the U.P.
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion (Amendment) Act, 2024. For
clarity, substituted Section 4 has been
reproduced herein below:

"4. An information relating to the
contravention of the Act may be given by
any person and the manner of giving such
information shall be the same as given in
Chapter XIII of the B.N.S.S. 2023 (Act
No.46 of 2023)".

8.
Additionally,
learned
A.A.G.
submitted that the objective of enacting the
Act, 2021 is the prohibition of unlawful
conversion from one religion to another by
misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent
means or by the marriage and for the
connected matters. The Constitution of
India confers on each individual the
fundamental right to profess, practise and
propagate his religion, subject to public
order, morality and health. He next submits
that the applicant was the main resource
person and under whose command, control
and resources, the innocent villagers have
been lured with money and tempted with
free
medical
treatment
for
religious
conversion and were being frightened in
the name of protection from diseases and
pandemics, and were being enticed to
believe
in
Jesus
Christ
and
adopt
Christianity.

9. India's constitutional framework
guarantees the right to religious freedom
under Article 25 of the Constitution of
India. This Article confers upon every
person the fundamental right to freely
profess, practise, and propagate religion,
subject to public order, morality, and
health. The use of the word "freely" in
Article 25 underscores the voluntary nature
of
religious
belief
and
expression.
However, the Constitution does not endorse
forced or fraudulent conversions, nor does
it shield coercive or deceptive practices
under the guise of religious propagation.

10. Article 25(1) guarantees freedom
of conscience and the right to freely
profess, practise, and propagate religion.
However, this right is expressly subject to
public order, morality, and health, which
provides a constitutional foundation for
regulating religious conversions that are
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procured
through
coercion,
misrepresentation, or undue influence.
These limitations are essential in ensuring
that the exercise of religious freedom does
not disrupt the societal fabric or endanger
individual and communal well-being.

10.1 The presumption that one
religion is inherently superior to other
clearly presupposes the moral and spiritual
superiority of one religion over another.
Such notion is fundamentally antithetical to
the idea of secularism. Indian secularism is
rooted in the principle of equal respect for
all religions. The State neither identify with
nor favour any religion, but instead must
maintain a principled equidistant from all
religions and faith.

10.2
In
light
of
these
constitutional
safeguards,
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 has been
enacted, aimed at maintaining public order,
moral integrity, and health in alignment
with Article 25 of the Constitution. The
primary object of the Act is to prohibit
conversions from one religion to another
that
are
carried
out
through
misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, or
marriage for the sole purpose of unlawful
conversion. By targeting such methods, the
law seeks to prevent exploitation and
manipulation that could have broader
destabilising effects on social harmony,
besides disruption of law and order.

11. Thus, section 4 of the Act, 2021
has been substituted with section 4 by the
Amendment Act, 2024 to align with the
constitutional spirit by balancing the
individual's right to religious freedom with
the state's duty to uphold public order,
morality, and health. It clarifies unlawful
conversion is not only an offence against an
individual and their relatives, but also the
State- particularly in cases of mass
conversion of socially and economically
deprived section of the society- when such
conversions
are
carried
out
through
misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, the
threat to the societal fabric individuals or
communal well-being becomes even more
grave. In such circumstances, the State
cannot remain a silent spectator.

12.
Based
on
the
foregoing
deliberations, it can safely be concluded
that section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act,
2021, shall be construed in harmonious
conjunction with Section 173 of BNSS,
2023 (section 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973), so as to effectuate the
legislative
object
of
deterring
and
penalizing unlawful religious conversions.
Applying
the
principle
of
purposive
interpretation, the undefined term "any
aggrieved person" under the unamended
Section 4 of the Act, 2021 cannot be
interpreted in isolation. Given the statutory
context and intent of the enactment, the
expression must be construed broadly to
include the Station House Officer (S.H.O.),
who is legally mandated to maintain public
order and is competent under Section 173
of BNSS, 2023 to register FIR for
cognizable offences.

13. The use of the word "may" in
section 4 of the Act is indicative of
legislative intent to confer a discretionary
power rather than impose a mandatory
obligation. It is a well-settled principle of
statutory interpretation that a term "may",
when
employed
by
the
legislature,
ordinarily denotes permissiveness and
confers discretion, unless the context or the
5 All. Durga Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
653
objective of the statute compels a different
construction. In the context of section 4 of
the Act, 2021, which enables any aggrieved
person, their relatives, or any other person
related by blood, marriage, or adoption to
lodge a complaint, the use of "may"
suggests that such persons are empowered
and at the same time keep the expression
"any aggrieved person" a class apart, who
under obligation of the Act empowered to
initiate legal proceedings. Specially, in
cases of unlawful mass conversion, it is the
statutory duty of the State to prevent
unlawful conversions by misrepresentation,
coercion, or fraud to achieve the objective
of
the
Act.
Therefore,
a
narrow
interpretation to the expression "any
aggrieved person" would make the Act
otiose.

14. Moreover, Section 7 of the Act,
when read with the provisions contained in
Chapter XIII of the BNSS, 2023, reinforces
this interpretation by enabling police
authorities to register, investigate and act
upon offences under the Act. In addition,
Section 170 of BNSS, 2023, which permits
preventive measures to maintain public
peace, supersedes any narrow reading of
Section 4 of Act, 2021 and underlines the
preventive and protective function of the
police in religiously sensitive matters. In
cases of unlawful mass conversion, to
exclude police from initiating legal action
would
paralyse
enforcement,
thereby
rendering
the
operative
provisions-
Sections 3(1), 5, 10, and 11- ineffective.

15. Additionally, the phrase "any
aggrieved person" under the pre-amended
Section 4 of Act, 2021 is not defined, and
applying
the
principle
of
purposive
interpretation, it shall be read in a manner that
effectuates the objective of the Act to
safeguard freedom of conscience and prevent
its infringement through unlawful conversion
practices.

16. Statutory interpretation often hinges
not merely on words used by the legislature,
but also on their syntactic arrangements-
including punctuation. The placement of a
comma (,), though seemingly trivial, can
profoundly affect later legal rights and
liabilities. Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion Act, 2021 is a classical illustration.
This provision allows certain persons to file
complaints related to unlawful religious
conversion, and the placement of a comma
after "any aggrieved person" has led to
interpretive uncertainty. The comma singles
"any aggrieved person" as a separate class of
complaints, distinct from family members
and others listed in the section. The pivotal
punctuation mark here is the comma after
"the aggrieved person".

17. Where ambiguity arises, reliance is
placed on context, legislative intent, and
established
principles
of
statutory
interpretation.
The
comma
after
"any
aggrieved person" suggests a deliberate
separation- pointing to the likelihood that
"any
aggrieved
person"
stands
independently,
unqualified
by
familial
connection. The primary objective of the Act,
2021 is to prevent religious conversions
brought about through coercion or frivolous
means- such as misrepresentation, force,
undue influence, coercion, allurement, or
fraudulent
means.
Interpreting
"any
aggrieved person" broadly serves this
purpose by expanding the category of
individuals who can initiate legal action.
The placement of a comma after "any
aggrieved person" in section 4 of the Act,
2021
supports
an
interpretation
that
separates the aggrieved person from the list
of relatives and others.
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. Section 4 of the Amended Act,
2024, expressly clarifies and permits "any
person"
to
provide
information
in
accordance with Chapter XIII of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(B.N.S.S.), confirms the legislative intent to
widen the scope of informants and further
clarify procedural access. This substitution
must be read as clarificatory in nature,
consistent with the principle that procedural
amendments apply to pending actions and
supports a harmonious construction with
sections 173 & 175 of BNSS, 2023. It
thereby reinforces that the police, or any
person aware of the commission of a
cognizable offence under the Act, 2021 is
empowered to initiate proceedings, thus
ensuring that the statute is not rendered
otiose.

19. Thus, "any person" aggrieved by
the unlawful conversion in infringement of
Article 25 of the Constitution of India, in
accordance with the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, as
amended by Act, 2024 entitled to file a
complaint before the police to lodge a FIR
to achieve its objectives.

20. Reverting to the present case, the
allegations made in the FIR and on perusal of
the statement of victim Gautam Yadav,
besides other victims, do clearly constitute a
cognizable offence justifying the registration
of the case and the investigation thereon, and
therefore, this case does not fall in any of the
category of the cases formulated in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others11, calling
for exercise of extraordinary or inherent
powers of the High Court to quash the FIR and
the proceedings arising out of the same.

20.1 It is further clarified, the
expression contained in the order shall have
no bearing on the merits of the case,
however, it shall be open for the applicant
to raise all the grounds at the appropriate
stage before the trial court.

21. Accordingly, the application is
hereby dismissed. As the applicant has not
been arrested by the police, therefore, it is
made clear that the applicants shall not be
taken into judicial custody, subject to the
terms and conditions as may be decided by
the trial court. In case, if the applicant does
not cooperate with the trial, the trial court
may proceed further in accordance with
law.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 654
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1326 of 2004

Shiv Narain & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
S.C. Mishra, Anil Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 304(ii) -Culpable Homicide
not amounting to Murder - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 304(ii) - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2)
- Independent Witness not supporting
prosecution fully - Not a ground to discard
entire prosecution case - Conviction can
be based on related witness if credible -
FIR not an encyclopaedia of facts - FIR
only corroborative, not substantive
-
Evidence
of
P.W.1
held
reliable,