Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mehbub Qureshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1649
1 MCRC-60237-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 19 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 60237 of 2025
MEHBUB QURESHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Kunal Vani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hemant Sharma- G.A. for the State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S./482 of Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the petitioner/accused for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.291/2022, dated 13.09.2022 registered at Police Station Sondwa, District - Alirajpur for offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120B, 212, 109 and 34 of IPC, Sections 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 3(1)(a)/5 of M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2021') and the subsequent proceedings against him.
2. Prosecution story, in brief is that co-accused Kavita @ Akanksha is wife of deceased Veerendra, who belongs to ST community, while the other co-accused persons are of community other than SC/ST. On 08.09.2022, the deceased had gone to Umrali to attend Lord Ganesh Chaturthi function, but he did not return, and on 10.09.2022, his dead body was found in Ankhad river. A Marg intimation and Dehati Nalisi were recorded on the same day at the instance of Jairam. On the same day, post-mortem of the dead body was conducted and it was found that Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-01-2026 18:55:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1649 2 MCRC-60237-2025 there were multiple injuries including stab wounds on the neck of the deceased, and it was opined that the deceased had died by hemorrhagic shock due to ante- mortem injuries and the death was homicidal in nature. On 13.09.2022, an FIR was lodged against unknown persons on the basis of Marg inquiry. During investigation, it was revealed that before the incident, the co-accused Zishan introduced himself to Kavita as a member of Hindu community, and developed physical relationship with her. When the deceased Veerendra got acquainted with the aforesaid fact, he opposed the illicit relationship. Later on, Kavita came to know about the fact that co-accused Zishan belongs to Muslim community. Co- accused Zishan started to pressurize her to adopt Islam. Thereafter, co-accused Zishan took Kavita to the house of the present applicant Mehbub, at Kukshi, and thereafter, to the co-accused Mohammad Khalid at Dhar. Both the persons induced and pressurized her to adopt Islam. Mohammad Khalid gave a Tabiz to Kavita to tie upon her neck and waist. Thereafter, on 08.09.2022, when co-accused Kavita was alone at her house, she called Zishan by phone, and thereafter, Zishan alongwith co-accused Shakeel came to her house. Thereafter, co-accused persons Kavita, Zishan and Shakil conspired to kill the deceased. Kavita called her husband by phone. When deceased returned to his house, co-accused persons Zishan and Shakeel hid in the bathroom. Kavita took the deceased to the top floor and Zishan and Shakeel followed them. Co-accused Zishan strangulated the neck of the deceased by rope, because of which, he had fallen down. The co-accused Kavita and Zishan had caught hold the hand and legs of the deceased, and when the deceased tried to raise alarm, Shakeel inserted a piece of cloth in his mouth. Thereafter, co-accused Zishan stabbed knife in his neck and waist. Co-accused Kavita had thrown a jar on the head of the deceased. Due to the injuries, the deceased had died on the spot. The aforesaid accused persons tied his dead body in Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-01-2026 18:55:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1649 3 MCRC-60237-2025 two plastic bags, and in the night, aforesaid accused persons dumped the dead body of the deceased to Ankhad river.
3. During investigation, memorandum statement of the accused persons was recorded. During personal search, Tabiz was seized from co-accused Kavita, which she was wearing on her neck and waist. Her blood stained clothes and mobile phone were seized as well. Blood stained soil from the place of incident was also seized. Blood stained scissors, rope, jar, piece of cloth used in the crime, a mobile phone, blood stained clothes and a motorcycle were seized at the instance of co-accused Zishan. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that allegations are levelled against the petitioner that he committed offence under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 3(1)(a)/5 of the Act of 2021. It is also submitted that there is no direct evidence available against the applicant and the entire case depends upon circumstantial evidence. It has not been alleged that the applicant was involved in the murder of the deceased. The applicant is implicated in the case only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Kavita. No incriminating material was recovered from the applicant. There is no legal evidence available in the case to connect him in the offence. No prima facie offence under Section 120B of IPC and 3(1)(a)/5 of the Act of 2021 are made out against the applicant. As per provisions of M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 no Police Officer can investigate into the offence of the act, except upon a written complaint of the aggrieved person or his/her family member. In the present case, no such written complaint has been made by the co-accused Kavita, or any of her family member.
It is also submitted that even if all the allegations made in FIR are considered to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-01-2026 18:55:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1649 4 MCRC-60237-2025 true in toto, still none of the offence is made out against him. Hence, registration of FIR is tantamount of abuse of process of Court. It is hence submitted that the FIR and subsequent proceedings be quashed against the applicant.
5. On other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent has supported the impugned FIR, as well as the final report, and submitted that as per statement of Rina, Ravina and Sirla recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., they have supported the case of prosecution and clearly raised specific allegations against the applicant. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. So far as the question revolves around the inquiry and investigation of an offence under Section 3(1)(a) and Section 5 of the Act of 2021 without written complaint of the aggrieved person or his/her family members is concerned, it is apposite to reproduce here Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 2021, which runs as under:-
" 3. Prohibition of unlawful conversions from one religion to other religion:-
(1) No person shall -
(a) convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any other person by use of misrepresentation, allurement, use of threat or force, undue influence, coercion or marriage or by any other fraudulent means;
(b) abet or conspire such conversion. (2) Any conversion in contravention of provision of this section shall be deemed null and void.
4. Complaint against conversion of religion - No Police Officer shall inquire or investigate except upon a written complaint of a person converted in contravention of Section 3 above or his parents or siblings or with the leave of the Court by any other person who is related by blood, marriage or adoption, guardianship or custodianship, as may be applicable."
8. Coordinate bench of this Court, in the case of Karan Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. [MCRC No.38276/2023] , has held as under:-
"8. From perusal of FIR dated 14.05.2023, it appears that FIR has been lodged on the basis of oral complaint made by complainant Arvind S/o Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-01-2026 18:55:25 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1649 5 MCRC-60237-2025 Chainsing Bacahniya and no written complaint has been produced by the complainant at the time of lodging FIR. Provision of Section 4 of the Act is mandatory, therefore, in non-compliance of the procedure provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2021, investigation of trial ab- initio violated. Concerned Police Officer has investigated the matter for the aforesaid offence without any prior written complaint, therefore, FIR in respect of offence under Sections 3(1)(a) read with Section 5 of the Act, 2021 against the applicant deserves to be quashed."
9. From a bare perusal of Section 4 of the Act of 2021, it is apparent that in respect of an offence under Section 3(1)(a)/5 of the Act of 2021 a written complaint is a must to proceed with the inquiry and investigation in the aforesaid offences, while in the matter in hand, no written complaint has been filed by a person as prescribed under Section 4 of the Act of 202,1 despite of that the Police lodged an FIR against the applicant and proceeded with the investigation. Hence, it appears that the petition deserves to be allowed because of non-compliance of Section 4 of the Act of 2021. It is also found that co-accused Mohammad Khalid, whose case was on par with the petitioner, as also been granted relief by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.13679/2023 dated 02.09.2024, in the present case, as the FIR lodged against him has also been quashed.
10. Therefore, FIR registered against the petitioner, in relation to offence under Sections 3(1)(a)/ 5 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 and Section 120-B of IPC deserves to be, and is hereby quashed.
11. Consequently, the petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Bahar Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 19-01-2026 18:55:25