Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Petition to Quash FIR in Rape and Forced Conversion Case, Emphasizes Legislative Intent

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Frequent interference in initial stages would undermine legislation’s purpose,” Court Notes

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR under sections related to rape, criminal intimidation, and unlawful religious conversion. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, underscores the serious nature of the allegations and the legislative intent behind the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021.

The court highlighted the significance of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021, emphasizing its role in addressing societal issues related to forced religious conversions. “The Act of 2021 is a new statute which has been enacted by the legislature to curtail a prevailing malady in society. Frequent interference with prosecutions at the initial stage under the Act would bog down the legislation and fail to achieve its purpose,” the bench noted.

The allegations against the petitioner, Ruksar, and co-accused Abdul Rahman and Irfan alias Chotu, include stalking, rape, and forced conversion to Islam. The complainant alleged that Abdul Rahman had been stalking her since 2022 and had coerced her into a sexual relationship. Subsequently, Irfan alias Chotu also began stalking and allegedly raping the informant. Ruksar, Abdul Rahman’s wife, allegedly pressured the complainant to convert to Islam and marry Irfan.

In rejecting the petition, the court took into account the gravity of the accusations. “Considering the allegations in the FIR and the fact that there is also an attempt to convert the petitioner, which is prohibited under the Act of 2021, we do not think that this is a case where we should interfere with the investigation at all,” the court stated.

The court meticulously examined the legislative framework and the necessity of allowing investigations to proceed unhindered in cases involving serious criminal offenses. The bench reasoned that premature interference would not only obstruct justice but also dilute the effectiveness of the new legislation aimed at curbing forced religious conversions.

Justice J.J. Munir remarked, “Frequent interference with prosecutions at the initial stage under the Act of 2021 would bog down the legislation and fail to achieve its purpose.”

The Allahabad High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition reflects a judicial commitment to upholding the legislative intent behind the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021. By allowing the investigation to proceed, the court reinforced the importance of addressing serious societal issues through robust legal mechanisms. This judgment is anticipated to have a significant impact on the enforcement of laws against forced conversions and related offenses.

 

Date of Decision: 5th June 2024

Ruksar vs. State Of UP And 3 Others

Similar News