SC/ST Act | Court Cannot Determine Conversion Status To Quash FIR Before Completion Of Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court

At this juncture, it would be too early to predict regarding the materials which may be collected and produced by prosecution in this case with the final report." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in an order dated October 1, 2026, held that it is premature for the Court to quash proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act based on a disputed claim of religious conversion while the investigation is still in progress.

]A single judge bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta observed that the factual determination of whether a deceased victim had converted to Christianity, thereby losing their Scheduled Caste status, must be based on evidence collated in the final police report rather than on contested documents produced at the stage of investigation.

The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR registered for offences including Section 302 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, following the death of an advocate who was found deceased on the Dharmavaram-Ellutla Road. The petitioner contended that the deceased had embraced Christianity and was cremated under Christian rites, thus rendering the invocation of the SC/ST (POA) Act unsustainable under the law. In support, the petitioner produced a certificate from a local church claiming the victim’s membership and baptism.

Disputed Evidence and Prosecution's Stance

The investigation, however, hit a roadblock regarding the authenticity of the church certificate. The prosecution produced a statement from the Secretary of the concerned church, who denied issuing the certificate, disavowed the signature thereon, and stated that the deceased was not a member of the church. The petitioner argued that this statement was coerced by the police, while the prosecution maintained that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste community and that the petitioner was fully aware of this status at the time of the alleged offence.

Court Refuses to Intervene at Investigation Stage

The primary issue before the court was whether it should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash the SC/ST Act charges based on the victim’s alleged religious conversion. The court examined the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which emphasized that a person ceases to be a member of a Scheduled Caste upon conversion to Christianity unless they establish formal reconversion and community acceptance.

Investigation Must Run Its Course

The court held that while the legal position regarding the loss of SC status upon conversion is well-settled by the Supreme Court, the factual matrix in the present case remained contested. Unlike previous cases where investigation had concluded and charge sheets were filed, the instant case was still under investigation. The court noted that it could not prematurely determine the veracity of the church records or the victim’s religious status, as these are evidentiary matters that the investigating agency must conclude during their probe.

Judicial Caution in Quashing Petitions

The court expressed that it would be "too early" to predict what material the final police report would contain. Given the conflicting claims regarding the issuance of the baptismal certificate and the Secretary’s statement, the court found it inappropriate to interfere with the ongoing investigation. The Bench emphasized that such disputed questions of fact regarding a victim's caste status must be left to be decided at an appropriate stage, ensuring that the investigative process is not stifled by contested assertions of fact during the pendency of the probe.

Concluding that the petition was premature, the High Court disposed of the criminal petition while keeping the petitioner’s contentions open to be raised at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. By declining to quash the FIR at this juncture, the court reinforced the principle that powers under Section 528 of the BNSS are not to be utilized to truncate a criminal investigation where the core challenge rests on disputed factual assertions yet to be verified by the investigating authority.

Date of Decision: 01 October 2026