Police Officers Can Lodge FIR Under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act: Allahabad HC

In Durga Yadav & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2025:AHC:78127], the Allahabad High Court considered the objection that the FIR could not have been registered because the informant was not the converted person or a close relative. The Court rejected that limited objection and accepted that police officers could register an FIR under the 2021 Act.

The practical effect is that an accused cannot seek quashing only by showing that the first information came from a police officer or another person outside the family. The defence must examine the actual allegations and ask whether the FIR discloses the ingredients of an offence under the Act or any connected provision of the BNS.

For a broader explanation of the first response after registration, see this guide on UP Conversion Act FIR and defence strategy. A case-specific review by a criminal lawyer in Lucknow should be based on the FIR, not on the headline description.

The central statute is the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Reported FIRs and court orders commonly refer to Sections 3 and 5(1), with the charge narrative sometimes referring to Section 8-related requirements. The exact provision depends on the alleged method, inducement, force, fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, or other facts pleaded by the prosecution.

Fresh investigations now use the BNSS and BNS rather than treating the old CrPC and IPC provisions as the governing codes. The FIR may combine the conversion statute with allegations of cheating, intimidation, wrongful restraint, unlawful assembly, or other offences if the factual allegations support them.

• Section 3 of the UP Act: examine the conduct alleged and whether it fits the statutory prohibition.
• Section 5(1) of the UP Act: check the punishment provision invoked and its application to each accused.
• BNSS procedure: registration, investigation, arrest, remand, bail, and filing of the police report follow the current procedural code.
• BNS provisions: additional offences must be tested against their individual ingredients, not merely their section numbers.

A wrong provision or defective police report can become relevant before the Lucknow Bench. The Allahabad High Court has also dealt with situations where the police used the wrong state law and were directed to submit a proper report under the applicable UP statute.

The first task is to obtain the complete FIR and identify the police station, crime number, sections, names of all accused, and the alleged date and place of conversion. Do not rely only on a social-media copy or a short news report. Ask counsel to compare the allegations with the ingredients of every section.

1. Obtain the FIR, complaint or written information, and any notice received from the investigating officer.
2. Prepare proof of age, identity, residence, relationship, employment, and the accused person’s location during the relevant period.
3. Preserve lawful electronic material such as messages, call records, travel records, photographs, consent documents, and medical records.
4. Do not delete chats, contact the complainant to pressure a compromise, or publish the parties’ private details.
5. Attend the investigating officer when required through counsel and comply with a valid notice unless a court grants protection.
6. Decide whether the immediate remedy is regular bail, anticipatory bail, or a petition before the Allahabad High Court under Section 528 BNSS.

If arrest is a concern, review the practical safeguards explained in the guide on arrest memos and grounds of arrest. The separate article on police custody under BNSS 187 may also help families understand remand proceedings.

The correct bail application depends on whether arrest has occurred and which court has jurisdiction. A person who reasonably apprehends arrest may consider Section 482 BNSS before the Sessions Court or the High Court. After arrest, regular bail may be sought before the Magistrate under Section 483 BNSS where that court has power, and before the Sessions Court or High Court under Section 484 BNSS.

Where the offence is bailable, Section 480 BNSS governs release on bail. If an undertrial has undergone the statutory fraction of the maximum imprisonment, Section 481 BNSS may become relevant, subject to its conditions and exclusions.

For bail preparation, counsel normally studies the alleged victim’s statement, age documents, medical or counselling material, prior criminal history, and the investigation status. A person facing an FIR in Lucknow should not wait for a warrant or arrest team before taking advice on bail and anticipatory bail.

The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is now exercised under Section 528 BNSS. The court may examine whether the FIR, read as a whole, discloses the alleged offence; whether the prosecution is legally barred; whether the allegations are impossible or inherently absurd; or whether continuation of the case would amount to abuse of process.

The Durga Yadav ruling means that the identity of the informant alone is not enough to obtain quashing. The petition should instead show a specific legal defect, such as absence of the required act, no allegation of force or inducement where that is essential to the section invoked, a clear contradiction in the prosecution version, or use of an inapplicable statute.

• Attach a certified or authenticated copy of the FIR and relevant notices.
• Explain each accused person’s role separately; collective allegations may require closer scrutiny.
• Place only reliable documents that can be considered at the threshold stage.
• State whether any charge-sheet, cognizance order, arrest, or bail order has already occurred.
• Disclose earlier petitions or proceedings concerning the same FIR.

See Can the High Court quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS? for the procedural structure. A quashing petition should not be used to suppress disputed evidence that properly belongs in trial.

For a case registered within Lucknow, urgent protection may begin before the Sessions Court Lucknow, while a challenge under Section 528 BNSS is filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, subject to territorial jurisdiction and the current filing rules. The CJM Court Lucknow handles remand and applications within the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.

These are indicative professional fees, not a court-fixed tariff. Seniority, number of accused, urgency, volume of documents, travel, government replies, and the number of hearings can change the fee. Court filing, copying, clerkage, and affidavit expenses may be separate.

For filing, keep the following papers ready:

• FIR and complaint or written information;
• arrest or notice documents, if any;
• identity and address proof of the accused;
• documents supporting the defence chronology;
• prior bail orders, if an application was already rejected;
• any charge-sheet, cognizance order, or summons received.

In our practice before the Lucknow Bench, such applications are typically listed within several days to a few weeks, depending on urgency, defects in filing, court workload, and whether the State has been served. An urgent arrest-protection request should be prepared with the FIR, the latest notice, the accused person’s address and identity proof, relevant prior orders, and a short chronology.

A Section 528 BNSS petition is filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench when the case has the required territorial connection. Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS may be filed before the competent Sessions Court or the High Court; regular bail after arrest may first go before the CJM Court Lucknow or another competent Magistrate, depending on the offence and remand order.

Judges commonly ask for the FIR, the complainant or alleged victim’s statement where available, the accused’s criminal history, investigation status, custody details, and copies of earlier orders. In private practice, a routine bail or FIR review may cost about ₹2,000 to ₹10,000 for the initial conference, a Sessions bail matter about ₹20,000 to ₹60,000, and a contested High Court petition about ₹50,000 to ₹1,50,000 or more. The consultation fee adjusts into your case fee if you proceed, so there is no separate charge to begin.

Advocate Onkar Pandey is a practicing lawyer at the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench with over 25 years of experience in criminal law, bail matters, FIR quashing, and family law. Enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (No. UP/4825/1999), he provides expert legal guidance to clients across Uttar Pradesh from his chamber at A-406, High Court, Lucknow. For a consultation on UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act FIR, contact Advocate Onkar Pandey at +91 98392 71553.