Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana 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

Latest Legal News