Rev Fr Sebastian Francis Babu Alias Father Babu Francis v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024A482/17172/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of a charge sheet and summoning order arising from an FIR alleging attempted forcible religious conversion and assault under Sections 295A, 307 IPC and Sections 3, 5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. Court heard arguments on applicability of SC/ST Act provisions, took affidavits on record, sought counter affidavits and listed the matter fo

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against applicant till next date of listing (02.09.2024); counter affidavits to be filed.

Rev Fr Sebastian Francis Babu Alias Father Babu Francis… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17172 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Rev Fr Sebastian Francis Babu Alias Father Babu Francis Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

A compliance affidavit filed by learned AGA today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶6

The service of notice sufficient upon the opposite party no.2, however, no one has appeared on behalf of him even in the revised call.

¶7

Heard Mr. Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Charge sheet dated 19.12.2023 and summoning order dated 22.12.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.604 of 2023 (State vs. Susairaj and others), arising out of Case Crime No.515 of 2023, under Sections 295A, 147, 307, 504, 506, 120B IPC and Section 3, 5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Police Station-Naini, DistrictPrayagraj, pending before the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad.

¶9

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR has been lodged on 01.10.2023 at about 16:16 hrs by one Vibhav Nath against nine named accused including the applicant, under Sections 295A, 147, 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3, 5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 with the allegations that on 01.10.2023 at about 10:00 hrs, during cleanliness campaign, he was informed by few Pareekshako (पररीक्षकक) that in the house of Mukesh Kumar being House No.56/1, Mundi Chak, conversion is being done. Coming to know about the aforesaid, the informant silently went to attend the programme where one person disclosing himself as Fadir Babu, Fransis s/o B.D. Fansis, R/oBethani Convent, Naini and few others as detailed in the FIR,

¶10

using unparliamentary languages with respect to Hindu deities were attempting to convert people present there by disclosing that those who have converted from Hinduism to Christianity have been given thousands of rupees. They were offering Rs.50,000/each and a job in Christian's school if a person converts to Christianity. When the informant refused to get converted, the applicant and other persons asked his caste and used caste indicative words, i.e. "Pasi" and asked him to adopt Christianity as nothing was there in his religion, i.e. Hinduism. He was also asked to throw all the idols of Hindu deities, when he refused to accept the aforesaid request, he was abused and with intention to kill, put towel (गमछछ) around his neck due to which he became unconscious. Hearing noise, the people involved in the cleanliness campaign reached there and save life of the informant. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and the applicant has been summoned vide order dated 22.12.2023. Hence the present application has been filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the version of FIR itself it is clear that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as neither Mukesh Kumar has been interrogated by the Investigating Officer nor there is any independent witness to show that an attempt was made by the applicant to convert the religion of the informant. From the version of FIR, it is also clear that on one hand, the accused persons are asking about the religion of the informant and on the other hand, used caste indicative words like "Pasi", which is not possible without knowing such a person or without the fact that he has disclosed his caste. He further submits that eight persons are named in the FIR and if it is accepted that all have assaulted the informant and with intention to kill, they have put towel (गमछछ) around his neck, it is not possible a person to come back alive, therefore, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out.

¶12

He further submits that Provisions of 3(2)(V) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act is not applicable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Alka Sethi and another vs. State of U.P.; Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.9000 of 2024 . Paragraph no. 28 of the aforesaid judgment is as under:-

¶13

"In view of the judgments laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court unless and until it is proved that the applicants are aware of the Caste of the victim, there is no occasion for him to make such a comment, or even if made, it would be unintentional, and hence the same would not fall under the offence under 3(2)

¶14

(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act."

¶15

He further submits that Provisions of Section 3 and 5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021 is also not applicable as the first informant is not an aggrieved person as from the version of FIR itself it is clear that some information was given by few Pareekshako (पररीक्षकक) on which he silently entered the place as alleged in the FIR and there is no independent witness to support that any such meeting was held and attempt was made by the applicant to convert the informant and any allurement was offered for the aforesaid purpose.

¶16

Placing reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Khuman Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in (2020) 18 SCC 763 , learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the incident had happened then nothing is there on record to show that the informant is belongs to SC/ST category and he has been harassed or beaten by the applicant, therefore, no offence under Section SC/ST Act is made out against the applicant.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the petition/application cannot be rejected merely on the ground that accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of framing of charge. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case Umesh Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2013) 10 SCC 591. Learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, submits that no prosecution could lie against the applicants, in such circumstances.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General placing Section 3 and 4 of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021 submits that all ingredients of the same are clear from the version of the FIR itself. He has placed reliance upon the statements of independent witness; Nisha placed at page 61 and Sandeep Pandey placced at page 115 to prove that the version of the FIR.

¶19

On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant submits that both of them are not independent witness and no such statement has been given to prove that they were present at the time of alleged incident.

¶20