Karnataka HC Quashes FIR in Anti-Conversion Case

• Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against three Muslim men in an anti-conversion case.
• The court found no evidence of conversion or attempt to convert.
• The complainant lacked legal standing under the Karnataka anti-conversion law.

GG News Bureau
Bengaluru, 24th July: The Karnataka High Court (HC) earlier this month quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against three Muslim men accused of promoting Islam and allegedly making derogatory remarks about Hinduism near a temple in Jamkhandi. The court found no evidence of conversion or an attempt at it, ruling the allegations “insufficient to constitute an offence” under the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act (KPRFR Act).

Justice Venkatesh Naik T., presiding over the hearing of a petition against the FIR on July 17, also noted that the complaint was made by an individual who was not legally entitled to do so under the anti-conversion law. The FIR was filed under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 5 of the KPRFR Act, 2022.

The court highlighted that Section 3 of the KPRFR Act prohibits religious conversions through wrongful means such as misrepresentation, coercion, or promise of marriage, with Section 5 prescribing punishment for violations. Crucially, Section 4 of the Act limits who can file complaints to only the person allegedly converted or their close relatives, a condition the complainant in this case did not meet, thus lacking “locus standi” or legal standing.

The FIR had alleged that on May 4, 2025, the three Muslim men were distributing pamphlets promoting Islamic teachings and verbally explaining their beliefs near the Ramatheertham Temple in Jamkhandi. It further claimed that when devotees approached them, the individuals began “criticising the Hindu religion” and making “derogatory remarks,” including statements like “There is no God except Allah, and all other gods are Kafir.” The FIR also alleged that the men offered material benefits, such as vehicles and employment opportunities in Dubai, as inducements for conversion.

The accused had petitioned the High Court to quash the FIR, arguing they were “merely preaching the teachings of Allah and Prophet Muhammad” and that the FIR lacked specific allegations of attempted conversion. They also contended that the complainant had no legal standing under Section 4 of the KPRFR Act.

In its judgment, the Karnataka HC firmly held, “Even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted, at its face value, it fails to satisfy the essential elements of an offence under Section 3 of the Act. There is no allegation that the petitioners converted or attempted to convert any person to another religion.” The court concluded that the absence of these essential elements rendered the allegations insufficient to constitute an offence under the Act, leading to the quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.