Unlawful Religious Conversion A Serious Offence, Court Can't Quash Proceedings Based On Settlement Between Parties: Allahabad HC

The Court also stressed that any compromise or settlement with respect to the offence of rape, against the honour of a woman, which shakes the very core of her life and tantamount to a serious blow to her supreme honour, offending both, her esteem and dignity, is “not acceptable” to the Court.

A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed thus while dismissing a quashing plea moved by Taufik Ahmad, seeking the quashing of the entire proceedings under Sections 420, 323, 376, 344 IPC and Section ¾ (1) U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020.

In brief, an FIR was filed on June 7, 2021, by the victim (a Hindu woman/Opposite Party No. 2) against Rahul @ Mohd. Ayan, Taufik Ahmad (the applicant), and Mohd. Riyaz. She claimed that she met Rahul on Facebook, where he posed as a Hindu and chatted with her for a year before he proposed her for marriage.

After she agreed, he took her to Nawabnagar, Rampur, where she was allegedly held for six months. During this time, she discovered that Rahul was actually Muslim by religion. When she refused to marry him, she claimed that Rahul, along with the two other accused (including the applicant), physically assaulted her and also raped her.

She later managed to escape and filed the FIR, accusing Rahul of luring Hindu girls through Facebook. Her statements under Sections 161 & 164 CrPC corroborated these allegations.

After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in May 2021; however, the parties entered into a compromise in March 2023. Based on the compromise, the applicant-accused moved the High Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings.

Opposing the quashing plea, AGA Pramod Kumar Singh argued that some of the offences are non-compoundable and heinous, as well as they are not private/personal in nature, affecting only the individuals, but they have an impact on society.

However, the Court further observed in respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.

The categorically noted that that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise “under no circumstances can really be thought of”.

The Court opined that these are crimes against the body of a woman, which is her own temple, and such offences suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation.

“There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and we say with emphasis that the Courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error,” the Court observed.

Furthermore, regarding the offence of unlawful religious conversion, the bench noted if a conversion is not inspired by religion feeling and under gone for its own sake, but is resorted merely with object of creating a ground for some claim of right or as a device adopted for the purpose to avoid marriage or to achieve an object without faith and belief in the unity of God (Allah) and Mahommed to be his prophet, the conversion shall not be bonafide.

Thus, the Court concluded that unlawful religious conversion, particularly when achieved through coercion, fraud, or undue influence, is considered a serious offence, in which the Court cannot quash the proceedings on the basis of settlement between the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, holding that the alleged offences under section 376 IPC and Section ¾ (1) U.P. Conversion Prevention Act, 2020, are serious in nature and non-compoundable, the Court refused to quash the case on the basis of compromise between the parties in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 CrPC.