Merely Distributing Pamphlets Promoting Islam & Explaining Its Beliefs At A Temple Not An Offence Unless Conversion Is Attempted: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against three muslim persons who were accused of distributing pamphlets promoting the teaching of Islam and verbally explaining their religious beliefs at a Hindu temple. 

The accused were charged under Sections 299, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5 of Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022. The court held that they had not committed any offence under the aforesaid statutes, since they did not make any attempt to convert any individuals to Islam.

It was alleged by the complainant that on 04.05.2025 at 4:30 p.m., when he had visited the Ramatheerth Temple, Jamkhandi, a group of individuals were distributing pamphlets promoting the teaching of Islam and verbally explaining their religious beliefs.

It was stated that the devotees present at the scene approached the individuals to inquire about their activities. In response, they allegedly began criticising Hindu Religion, making derogatory remarks.

Further, it was stated that these individuals were offering material incentives, such as vehicles and job opportunities in Dubai, to entice people to convert to Islam.

Seeking quashing of the offence, the petitioners argued that they were merely preaching the teachings of Allah or Prophet Muhammad.

It was stated that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioners attempted to convert any person from one religion to another, the allegations in the impugned FIR fail to satisfy the essential elements of an offence punishable under Section 5 of the KPRFR Act.

Further, it was stated that Section 4 of the KPRFR Act specifies persons enumerated therein have the locus standi to lodge a complaint. The 2nd respondent, being a third party, does not qualify as a complainant under the Act, rendering the FIR legally unsustainable, it was argued.

The prosecution opposed the plea, submitting that the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of the offence under Section 5 of the Act.

Findings:

The bench noted that Section 3 of the Act prohibits conversion from one religion to another through misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or promise of marriage. Section 4 of the Act specifies who is competent to lodge a complaint, limiting it to the converted person, their parents, siblings, and other relatives by blood, marriage, adoption, or association. Section 5 of the Act prescribes punishment for those who contravene Section 3 of the Act.

Following this, it held, “In the present case, the complaint was lodged by a third party, who does not fall within the category of persons enumerated under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, registration of FIR by 2nd respondent, who lacks locus-standi, is legally invalid.”

Further, it said that even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at its face value, it fails to satisfy the essential elements of an offence under Section 3 of the Act, since there is no allegation that the petitioners converted or attempted to convert any person to another religion.

Allowing the petition and quashing the FIR, the court said, “The absence of these essential elements renders the allegations insufficient to constitute an offence under the Act. Consequently, the registration of the FIR, culminating in the filing of the charge sheet, is vitiated.”

Appearance: Advocates Iftekhar Shahpuri, Anwarali D Nadaf for Petitioners. 

HCGP Abhishek Malipatil for R1. 

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 246

Case Title: Mustafa & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR 

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 101905 OF 2025