Supreme Court Quashes Multiple Fatehpur FIRs, Holds Second FIRs On Same Incident Impermissible

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra heard a batch of writ petitions and criminal appeals arising out of several FIRs lodged in Fatehpur and Nawabganj (Prayagraj) under the Indian Penal Code and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The petitions challenged the registration and prosecution arising from six FIRs, contending multiplicity of FIRs, delayed lodging, and the competence of complainants under the then unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act.

The Court allowed the writ petitions in part and quashed multiple FIRs and consequential proceedings while leaving one FIR’s IPC-related charges for further hearing. It held that where a statute or settled principles barred continuation or where the process of law was being abused, constitutional courts must act to secure the ends of justice. The Court summarised the outcome by quashing FIR No. 224/2022 (Kotwali, Fatehpur) and all consequential proceedings; quashing FIR Nos. 54/2023, 55/2023 and 60/2023 as subsequent, repetitive complaints in relation to the same alleged mass conversion incident; and quashing FIR No. 47/2023 (alleged conversion on 25.12.2021). FIR No. 538/2023 was de-tagged for separate hearing on IPC offences while the Court held that offences under the U.P. Conversion Act in that FIR could not stand in view of Section 4 as it then stood. The Court emphasised established limits on the High Courts’ extraordinary powers and the need to prevent abuse of criminal process, recalling that “there can be no second FIR” in relation to the same occurrence unless the test of sameness was inapplicable.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code ... we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised … (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence … (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings … (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive …”

Background The disputes arose from an alleged mass conversion at the Evangelical Church of India, Hariharganj, Fatehpur on 14.04.2022 and an earlier alleged conversion on 25.12.2021 at Deviganj. FIR No. 224/2022 (15.04.2022) was lodged by a Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader alleging large‑scale unlawful conversion; subsequently FIR Nos. 47/2023, 54/2023, 55/2023 and 60/2023 were filed by different complainants claiming to be victims. FIR No. 538/2023 (Nawabganj, Prayagraj) alleged attempted murder and seizure demands alongside conversion-related conduct. The petitioners argued delayed lodging, cyclostyled and identical allegations across FIRs, mala fide repetition to overcome perceived infirmity in FIR No. 224/2022, and that the first informant in FIR 224/2022 did not fall within persons competent to complain under the then unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act. The State contended police duty to register and investigate cognizable offences and relied on chargesheets and case diary material. The Court reviewed the case diaries, five chargesheets filed in the primary FIR, witness statements, and forensic material, and found significant inconsistencies, cyclostyled affidavits and lack of reliable proof of forgery or coercive conversion. Applying the “test of sameness” and principles in T.T. Antony, Babubhai and Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded continuation of several prosecutions would amount to abuse of process and quashed the identified FIRs; FIR 538/2023’s IPC aspects were directed to be heard separately and interim protection continued.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1249; Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 123 of 2023 (batch with multiple SLPs / Criminal Appeals) Case Title: Rajendra Bihari Lal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Siddharth Dave, Senior Counsel; Vairawan A.S.; Mukta Gupta, Senior Counsel; Siddharth Agarwal, Senior Counsel; Rebecca John, Senior Counsel; C.U. Singh, Senior Counsel (among others for various appellants) For the Respondent(s): R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India; Manish Goel, Additional Advocate General (U.P.) (and state counsel)