The Gujarat High Court quashed the first FIR registered by the Gujarat Police under the state’s ‘anti-love jihad’ law against Muslim man, his parents and priests following the husband and wife settled the matter among themselves.
According to the court, the further continuation of the criminal proceedings in relation to the FIR would be nothing but unnecessary harassment to the parties, Live Law reported.
Justice Niral R. Mehta quashed and set aside all the proceedings arising out of the FIR.
As per the FIR, the woman had earlier alleged that her husband Samir and his parents, and the priests who performed the matrimonial ceremony had forcibly converted her religion through marriage.
They were all booked under Sections 498A, 376(2) (n), 377, 312, 313, 504, 506(2), 323, 419, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 4(A), 4(2)(A), 4(2)(B) and 5 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5-a), 3(1)(w)(1)(2) of the Sche
The recent judgment came after the woman and the accused moved the High Court seeking quashing of the case on the ground that the matter is amicably settled amongst the parties.
The woman told HC that contained grossly incorrect and untrue facts, particularly regarding the allegations of forceful conversion, the legal website reported.
Importantly, the woman alleged that she had approached a local police station in Vadodara to report petty matrimonial discord, however, the cops, on their own, brought in the “love jihad” angle. The police officers inserted the allegations in the FIR which she did not even make, she claimed.
“Love jihad” is a term used by the Hindu nationalist groups to describe an alleged phenomenon where Muslim men lure Hindu women, by hook or by crook, into marrying them and converting to Islam. Hindu group propagandists claim that this is an organised racket rooted in a widespread conspiracy. However, successive probes have failed to find any evidence that such a conspiracy exists and the even Union government has admitted that the term has no credible definition.