MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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