Allahabad High Court
Ruksar vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 5 June, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:101896-DB Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8635 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ruksar Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avanish Pratap Singh,Udai Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at great length and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner, in this case, is charged with offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 (for short, 'the Act of 2021').
3. The allegation against the petitioner and the co-accused, Abdul Rahman is that Abdul Rahman would stalk the informant since the year, 2022 when she was reading in Class-X. He would follow her to the temple and college and made friends with her. It is also said that once he called her home and ravished her. Later on, this became a regular feature.
4. Still later, Abdul Rahman was married and his brother, Irfan alias Chotu, started stalking the informant. He made friends with the informant. They put the informant under fear of losing her reputation and spoiling her life. There is allegation of ravishing the informant against Irfan alias Chotu as well.
5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he suggested the informant that she better convert to Islam and marry Irfan alias Chotu. On 30.03.2024, all the accused acting in conspiracy called the infomant over to their place on the pretext of meeting her where she was ravished by the man. Irfan would take her to a mazar and force her to wear Burqa. After this ordeal, the accused put her on board a train bound for Karvi and sent her back. At the Karvi Station, Abdul Rahman received the informant and took her to his place where he ravished her through the night. He threatened her with death and told her that if she disclosed anything to anyone all her family would be done to death.
6. Considering the allegations in the FIR and the fact that there is also an attempt to convert the petitioner, which is prohibited under the Act of 2021, we do not think that this is a case where we should interfere with the investigation at all.
7. At this stage, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the allegation of ravishing the victim is against the men and not the petitioner who is a women. The allegations against the petitioner are limited to an offence under the Act of 2021. The allegation is very definite and fits into a complete scheme of things between the two men and the petitioner. She is married to one of them and is his wife. She wanted the prosecutrix to marry her husband's younger brother and do so after conversion to Islam.
8. The Act of 2021 is a new statute which has been enacted by the legislature to curtail a prevailing malady in society. If there is frequent interference with prosecutions at the initial stage under the Act of 2021, the legislation which is still young and designed to curtail a mischief in society that is rife it would be bogged down and fail to achieve its purpose.
9. In these circumstances, we do not think that this is a case where we ought to interfere with the impugned FIR at the instance of the petitioner.
10. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.6.2024 Prashant D. (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)