Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In Religious Conversion Case, Finds Prima Facie Material Against Accused

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of influencing and pressuring a family to convert their religion, holding that the material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case requiring a full-fledged trial.

Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt dismissed a petition filed by Hemraj Tailor under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482, CrPC), seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of Crime No. 481/2023 registered at Jeerapur police station in Rajgarh district. The case involves offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, along with Sections 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner argued that the allegations against him were vague and unsupported by any direct evidence. Advocate Sandeep Kumar Sen contended that the chargesheet merely alleged that the petitioner motivated the complainant’s husband to adopt Islam and convert his religion. According to the petitioner, no direct role had been attributed to him in the alleged conversion of either the complainant or her minor son.

The petitioner further claimed that the ingredients necessary to invoke the offences under the Freedom of Religion Act were absent from the material gathered during investigation. It was argued that the FIR had been registered without sufficient evidence and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of the legal process.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decisions in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and G. Sagar Suri v. State of Uttar Pradesh to argue that the High Court could exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

Opposing the plea, government advocate Sunit Kapoor submitted that the investigation had already been completed and the chargesheet filed after collection of substantial material. The State particularly relied upon the statement of the complainant’s minor son, Prince, recorded on December 18, 2023, along with the complainant’s own statement and other witness testimonies.

The State argued that the witness statements clearly disclosed the petitioner’s role in the alleged acts and showed sufficient material to proceed with trial. It was contended that the allegations involved serious accusations of pressurising the complainant and her son for religious conversion at the petitioner’s behest, and therefore the High Court should not interfere at the preliminary stage.

While examining the matter, the High Court reproduced the provisions of Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) dealing with inherent powers of the High Court, along with the relevant provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act and the Penal Code. The Court observed that the settled legal principles cited by the petitioner were not in dispute, but noted that the facts of the present case did not justify exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, the Court said there was prima facie material implicating the petitioner. The Court specifically noted the statements of the complainant and her minor son while refusing to interfere. “Looking to the seriousness of the allegations made in the petition regarding pressurizing the wife and son by the husband for conversion at the behest of present petitioner,” the Court observed, continuation of proceedings could not be treated as an abuse of process of law.

The order reiterates the consistent judicial view that High Courts should exercise extraordinary powers to quash criminal proceedings sparingly, particularly where investigation has concluded and witness statements support the prosecution version. The Court emphasised that disputed factual questions cannot ordinarily be decided at the preliminary stage without trial.

The Court further held that the defence raised by the petitioner could only be tested during trial after evidence is led and witnesses are cross-examined. Holding that no case was made out for quashing the FIR or proceedings pending before the Special Judge under the SC/ST Act, the High Court dismissed the petition as meritless and also disposed of the connected interim application.

Case Title: Hemraj Tailor v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: April 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt