In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has affirmed that a Station House Officer (SHO) has the authority to file an FIR in cases of illegal religious conversion. The court stated that under Section 4 of the Prohibition of Religious Conversion Act, the term “victim” should be interpreted broadly. It is not limited to the individual directly affected but extends to the police, who are responsible for maintaining law and order, as well as the victim’s relatives.
The court dismissed the petition challenging the FIR filed by the SHO, which sought to nullify the case proceedings. It clarified that the SHO, in this context, is also considered a “victim.” The order was issued by Justice Vinod Diwakar after hearing the petitions filed by Church pastor Durga Yadav, Rakesh, David, and two others.
Religious Conversion Activities Targeting Marginalized Groups in Jaunpur
The case stems from an incident in Vikrampur village, located in the Kerakat tehsil of Jaunpur district, where a church was allegedly organizing gatherings to lure socially marginalized, Dalit, and underprivileged individuals with promises of money and medical treatment to induce religious conversions. When the Kerakat police raided the church, the main culprit fled, but three men and one woman were apprehended at the scene. Following this, the SHO filed an FIR.
The issue was brought before the court after the ACJM in Jaunpur took cognizance of the chargesheet. The petitioners contended that according to Section 4 of the Act, only a victim could file a complaint, and since the SHO had filed the FIR, it should be considered invalid, and the case proceedings should be dismissed.
Government’s Response and Court’s Ruling
The government responded by stating that multiple victim statements had been recorded, and Pastor Durga Yadav of Bhullandiya was the main culprit who had confessed to the crime. It further argued that the Act does not provide a clear definition of “victim.” Under Article 25 of the Constitution, every individual has the right to religious freedom, including the right to practice, propagate, and profess religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The state has the responsibility to protect public order, morality, and health, and any forced conversion or manipulation to change one’s religion is considered a crime against the state.
The court emphasized that the police, as enforcers of law and order, are within their rights to file an FIR in such cases, and the action does not violate the legal framework. The court rejected the petition and directed the petitioners to present their case in the trial court. It also stated that as the petitioners had not been arrested, they should not be taken into judicial custody unless they fail to cooperate with the investigation, in which case the court could take legal action.
This ruling reaffirms the responsibility of law enforcement in protecting individuals from forced conversions and upholding public order and morality.
