MP High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Damoh School Over Alleged Forced Hijab, Religious Coercion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Jabalpur Bench has refused to quash an FIR alleging forced religious practices, including compulsory Hijab, at a Damoh school, holding that the prosecution case cannot be reduced to the single question of a dress code and that disputed facts must be tested at trial, not decided at the quashing stage.

Justice Himanshu Joshi dismissed three connected petitions through a common order dated August 4, 2026, noting all three cases stemmed from the same enquiry into complaints against Ganga Jamuna Higher Secondary School, Damoh, run by the Ganga Jamuna Welfare Society.

The FIR, registered on June 7, 2023 as Crime No.498/2023 at Police Station Kotwali, Damoh, initially invoked Sections 295-A, 120-B and 506 Part-II of the IPC. Investigation later added Sections 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021. The FIR followed an enquiry ordered by the Collector after communal tension in Damoh, triggered by an earlier incident on June 6, 2023 in which Bajrang Dal members allegedly intercepted the vehicle of the District Education Officer and threw ink on him.

Petitioner Shailendra Kumar Jain, represented by advocate Zamir Mohammad Shah, argued he was not part of the school's management committee for 2023-26 and that the FIR's informant was the enquiry committee, not a converted person or victim as required under Section 4 of the Freedom of Religion Act, relying on the Court's earlier order in Jerald Almeda vs State of Madhya Pradesh. Shah made identical submissions for co-petitioner Abdul Wasim Bari.

Teacher Anas Athar and peon Rustam Ali, represented by Senior Advocate Shashank Shekhar with advocate Samresh Katare, additionally challenged the framing of charges, contending that cognizance under Section 295-A read with Section 120-B IPC was taken without the mandatory sanction under Section 196 CrPC, since sanction came only on September 18, 2023, after the charge-sheet.

Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh opposed all three petitions, submitting that the FIR recorded a student's statement alleging compulsory Hijab and Dupatta from Class VI onward, a prohibition on wearing Tilak and Kalawa, mandatory Urdu instruction, and recitation of prayers, all allegedly enforced through threats. He said sanction was placed before the trial court before charges were framed, citing Supreme Court rulings including Dharmesh @ Nanu Nitinbhai Shah and State of MP vs Bhooraji, that a sanction defect does not automatically vitiate proceedings absent failure of justice.

Justice Joshi agreed that "mere wearing of a particular dress, without the statutory ingredients of conversion or an attempt to convert," cannot by itself constitute an offence. However, he held that "the prosecution case is not founded solely upon the wearing of Hijab," noting allegations of prohibition on Tilak and Kalawa, compulsory religious practices, and threat and coercion, which required "appreciation of evidence" rather than adjudication at the quashing stage.

On the sanction issue, the Court held that subsequent sanction, obtained before charges were framed, could not by itself render the cognizance order void, relying on the State's cited precedents. It also noted the trial had "substantially progressed," with 32 of 33 prosecution witnesses already examined, calling this "a relevant circumstance" against invoking inherent jurisdiction to terminate the prosecution.

The Court rejected the argument that parents' affidavits stating only government-prescribed books were used could independently justify quashing, holding it could not "select one piece of material and reject the remaining prosecution material" under Section 528 BNSS.

On the applicants' claim of not being committee members, the Court found this could support their defence but not settle whether they exercised influence over the school's functioning, calling it a factual question for trial.

Holding the allegations were not "inherently absurd" or "incapable of constituting the offences alleged," the Court dismissed M.Cr.C. No.1001/2026 filed by Shailendra Kumar Jain, M.Cr.C. No.49886/2023 filed by Anas Athar and Rustam Ali, and M.Cr.C. No.52398/2025 filed by Abdul Wasim Bari, leaving all contentions open for trial.

Case Title: Shailendra Kumar Jain v. The State of Madhya Pradesh with connected matters

Date of Order: August 4, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi