Case at a Glance
A social worker at a charitable institution in Amravati district alleged that four office bearers and associates had pressed him and his wife to convert to Christianity, promising education costs for their children and a house. An FIR and chargesheet followed under Sections 299 and 302 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Bombay High Court quashed them, holding that the allegations at most showed the applicants were promoting their own religion, with no deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings. It also noted the absence of sanction under Section 217 BNSS and that no anti-conversion law existed when the alleged conduct occurred.
FIR No. 21 of 2026 was registered on 14 January 2026 at Chandur Bazar Police Station, Amravati, and Chargesheet No. 36 of 2026 was filed. The complainant worked as a social worker at a charitable institution, earning an honorarium of Rs. 6,750 a month. He alleged that the first applicant, an office bearer, promised to pay for his children’s education and build a house if the couple converted, that between September and November 2025 the applicants pressed the couple to record their religion as Christian in official documents, and that children were sought to be influenced at Sunday school.
The applicants, including a 76-year-old retired man, a teacher and social workers, argued that there was no allegation of deliberate, malicious intent to outrage religious feelings or of any insult to a religion, and that cognizance under Section 299 required prior sanction. The State argued that the applicants had enticed the couple to convert through promises of benefits, so the offences were made out. The complainant did not appear.
The Key Question Before the Court
Do allegations that the accused urged a couple to convert, with promises of benefits, disclose offences under Sections 299 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Why the offences were not made out
Section 299 BNS (corresponding to the old Section 295A IPC) punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or beliefs. Justice M.W. Chandwani found that the complaint did not allege any such conduct: “The applicants were merely promoting their religion”. As for Section 302 BNS, nothing showed that the applicants uttered words, made sounds or gestures with the deliberate intention of wounding anyone’s religious feelings; the Court also noted that Section 302 is non-cognizable.
The Court added that sanction under Section 217 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was a precondition for cognizance of Section 299 and had not been obtained. It further observed that during the period of the alleged conduct in 2025 “there was no law prohibiting conversion by way of allurement from one religion to another”, since Maharashtra’s anti-conversion law came into force on 28 August 2026. Applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1990) 11 SC CK 0008, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, it held that the FIR did not disclose the commission of any offence.
What the Court Actually Held
- Allegations that the accused promoted their own religion do not, without deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, make out Section 299 BNS.
- Section 302 BNS requires deliberate intention to wound religious feelings through words, sounds or gestures, which was not alleged.
- Sanction under Section 217 BNSS is a precondition for cognizance of Section 299 and was absent; and no law against conversion by allurement existed at the time of the alleged conduct.
- FIR No. 21 of 2026 and Chargesheet No. 36 of 2026 under Sections 299 and 302 read with 3(5) BNS were quashed against the applicants.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It draws a line between propagating one’s faith and the offence of outraging religious feelings.
- It applies the sanction requirement under Section 217 BNSS to Section 299 prosecutions.
- It notes the non-retrospective reach of new anti-conversion legislation to earlier conduct.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For the Public
- Hurt sentiments alone do not make an offence; the law requires deliberate and malicious intent.
- Conduct is judged by the law in force when it occurred.
- Complaints about inducement to convert after 28 August 2026 would be assessed under the new Maharashtra law.
For Counsel
- Check for Section 217 BNSS sanction before cognizance of Section 299.
- Test the FIR against the ingredients of Sections 299 and 302 BNS.
- Rely on Bhajan Lal where the FIR discloses no offence.
Key Takeaways
- Promoting one’s own religion is not, by itself, an offence under Section 299 BNS.
- Section 302 BNS needs deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.
- Section 217 BNSS sanction is a precondition to cognizance.
- FIR and chargesheet quashed under the Bhajan Lal categories.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Section 299 BNS?
It is the BNS provision on deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, corresponding to Section 295A IPC.
Did the Court rule on Maharashtra’s anti-conversion law?
No. It only noted that the law came into force on 28 August 2026, after the alleged conduct, so there was no law prohibiting conversion by allurement at the relevant time.
Why did sanction matter?
The Court held that sanction under Section 217 BNSS is a precondition for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 299 BNS, and none had been obtained.
Conclusion
The Nagpur Bench held that the complaint, taken at face value, described efforts to promote a religion rather than a malicious insult to another, and that the procedural requirement of sanction was also missing.
Practical takeaway: In prosecutions under Sections 299 and 302 BNS, examine whether deliberate malicious intent is actually alleged and whether Section 217 BNSS sanction exists.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com