Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash FIR in UP Anti-Conversion Case Involving Students

The FIR was lodged under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 against two Class 12 students at a school in Uttar Pradesh. The complainant, a Hindu girl, alleged that the accused repeatedly forced her to wear a burqa and attempted to convert her to Islam against her will. The police registered the FIR under Sections 3 and 4 of the UP Act read with relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

When the accused approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 528 BNSS (the new code replacing Section 482 CrPC) for quashing of the FIR, the Court dismissed their petition. The Division Bench noted that the allegations, if proved, would constitute a clear violation of the Act. The Court also vacated the interim protection that had previously been granted to the accused, allowing the investigation to proceed without hindrance.

• Case Name: Aleena @ Aleena Parveen and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh
• Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine All 2811
• Court: Allahabad High Court (Prayagraj Bench)
• Key Finding: No ground for quashing the FIR; investigation must continue.

The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 makes forced or fraudulent religious conversion a punishable offence. Section 3 prohibits unlawful conversion, Section 4 prescribes punishment (up to 10 years imprisonment), and Section 5 raises a presumption of coercion if conversion is linked to marriage or other inducements.

In the Aleena case, the prosecution invoked Section 5 to argue that the alleged forcing to wear a burqa and repeated attempts amounted to coercion. The High Court agreed that such acts fall squarely within the mischief the Act seeks to prevent. The table below summarises the key sections:

While the UP Anti-Conversion Act is a state law, the criminal proceedings also involve offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. In this case, the Court considered Section 199 BNS (forcible conversion of religion) and Section 200 BNS (threats or force to convert). Additionally, Section 354 BNS (criminal intimidation) was invoked for the alleged threats.

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the High Court’s power to quash an FIR is governed by Section 528 BNSS (inheriting the legacy of Section 482 CrPC). For bail in such cases, the accused may approach the Sessions Court under Section 483 BNSS for non-bailable offences or the High Court under Section 484 BNSS after rejection by a lower court.

1. Section 199 BNS: Forcible conversion of religion
2. Section 200 BNS: Threat or force to convert
3. Section 354 BNS: Criminal intimidation
4. Section 528 BNSS: High Court’s inherent power to quash FIR
5. Section 483 BNSS: Bail in non-bailable offences before Magistrate/Sessions
6. Section 484 BNSS: High Court bail after rejection

Understanding these provisions is vital for anyone seeking bail or quashing of FIR in such matters.

The Aleena ruling stands in stark contrast to another recent decision of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Christians in Uttar Pradesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine All 1452). In that case, the Court quashed an FIR against Christians accused of distributing Bibles and preaching under the said Act. The difference lies in the presence of a specific victim and evidence of coercion.

In Christians in UP, the Court held that distributing religious literature and preaching are not crimes unless there is evidence of coercion or inducement. The Act requires a specific victim of forced conversion; absent such a victim, the charge is invalid. This ruling highlighted the potential misuse of the Act against legitimate religious activities.

If you or someone you know is facing an FIR under the UP Anti-Conversion Act, filing a quashing petition before the Allahabad High Court under Section 528 BNSS is one possible remedy. However, as the Aleena case shows, the Court will not quash the FIR if the allegations prima facie disclose an offence.

The procedure involves the following steps:

1. Engage a criminal lawyer in Lucknow with expertise in High Court quashing matters.
2. Collect all relevant documents such as the FIR, charge sheet (if filed), and evidence rebutting the allegations.
3. Draft a petition under Section 528 BNSS stating grounds for quashing, e.g., lack of specific victim, no evidence of coercion, or mala fide intent.
4. File the petition at the Lucknow or Prayagraj Bench of the Allahabad High Court, whichever has jurisdiction.
5. Attend hearings; the court may grant interim protection or proceed to final hearing.

In the Aleena case, the Court rejected the quashing plea after hearing arguments, underscoring that strong evidence of coercion will defeat such petitions. A consultation with Advocate Onkar Pandey can help assess the strength of your case.

Understanding the costs and duration involved in filing a quashing petition is essential for litigants. The fees vary depending on the complexity of the case and the lawyer’s experience. Below is a typical estimate for litigants in Uttar Pradesh:

These figures are indicative; actual costs depend on the lawyer’s standing and the court’s schedule. For a detailed fee breakdown tailored to your case, consult an experienced lawyer.

The Aleena ruling sends a strong message that the UP Anti-Conversion Act will be enforced rigorously, especially when vulnerable students are involved. Accused persons cannot expect easy quashing of FIRs; the investigation must proceed, and bail becomes the primary remedy.

For those accused under this Act, the best course of action is to apply for bail under Section 483 BNSS before the Sessions Court or Section 484 BNSS before the High Court, after due assessment of the evidence. Given the presumption of coercion under Section 5 of the Act, the accused must rebut it by showing lack of force or inducement.

• Immediate steps: Apply for anticipatory bail if arrest is imminent, or regular bail after arrest.
• Legal representation: A seasoned criminal lawyer in Lucknow is critical to navigate the complexities of the Act and the BNSS.
• Documentation: Maintain all communications, witness statements, and evidence that demonstrate the voluntary nature of any religious discussion.

Parents of students accused under this Act should seek legal advice promptly, as prolonged investigation can affect academic and professional futures.

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 Anti-Conversion cases, contact Advocate Onkar Pandey at +91 98392 71553.