The Allahabad High Court on April 13, 2026, delivered a sharp rebuke to what it described as a “disturbing trend” in Uttar Pradesh—namely, the routine filing of false FIRs under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The Court noted with concern that cases are being registered “left and right” under the statute, only to later collapse under scrutiny as baseless or fabricated, as reported by LiveLaw.
A bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava made these observations while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Mohd. Faizan and others, who sought the quashing of an FIR lodged in Bahraich district.
The FIR in question accused the petitioners of enticing away the complainant’s 18-year-old daughter, alleging an intent to forcibly convert her religion and compel her into marriage. However, the case took a decisive turn when the Court was presented with the woman’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. In her testimony, she unequivocally stated that she had been in a consensual relationship with the petitioner for three years. She firmly denied any allegations of religious conversion, coercion, or sexual misconduct.
Significantly, the woman expressed a clear desire to live with the petitioner and voiced apprehension for her own safety and that of her family. She specifically urged that members of certain Hindu organisations should not harass or intimidate them following her statement.
The Court took serious note of the fact that despite this categorical rebuttal of the FIR’s claims, the Investigating Officer chose only to drop the rape charge (under the BNS), while continuing to pursue charges of kidnapping, assault, and violations under the 2021 anti-conversion law. Calling this a “peculiar turn,” LiveLaw reported, the bench observed that once the victim’s own account dismantled the foundation of the FIR, continuing the investigation appeared wholly unjustified.
In a pointed remark, the Court stated that, prima facie, the Investigating Officer seemed to be acting under external pressure or influence, though it refrained from elaborating further at this stage.
The bench also highlighted a broader pattern: an increasing number of such FIRs are being initiated not by the alleged victims, but by third parties. It noted that a similar concern had recently been flagged by the Supreme Court of India in Rajendra Bihari Lal vs State of U.P., reinforcing the systemic nature of the issue.
Taking a stern stance, the High Court directed the complainant—who is the woman’s father—to appear in person at the next hearing and explain why action should not be initiated against him for filing what the Court described as a “patently false, fake, and frivolous” FIR.
In a further move signalling institutional accountability, the Court ordered the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit detailing the steps being taken to address the filing of such baseless cases. The affidavit must be submitted by May 19, failing which the official has been directed to appear before the Court in person with all relevant records.
Pending further proceedings, the Court has stayed the arrest of the petitioners. It has also directed the State authorities to ensure adequate security for the petitioners, the woman at the centre of the case, and her family members within three days—acknowledging the credible threats and fears expressed before it.
Related:
Intrusive and Unconstitutional: CJP’s dissent note on Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Law