R/SCR.A/9802/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 9802 of 2025 ========================================================== IMTIYAZBHAI NAZIRBHAI MALEK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MOHMEDSAIF HAKIM(5394) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 14/10/2025 ORAL ORDER 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction directing the respondents to entertain the complaint dated 23.05.2025 and register the FIR and take cognizance of the same. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, daughter of the petitioner got married, which is required to be registered under the Special Marriage Act and based on the said illegal conversion, got registered the marriage in collusion with the accused persons. In such background of facts, it is prayed in the petition to register the complaint. 3) Ld. APP has opposed the present petition and submitted that, alleged act of conversion took place in Rajasthan and daughter of the petitioner has not raised any grievance and voluntarily entered into a marriage. Hence, no o-ence much less any o-ence as alleged by the petitioner is made out. In such circumstances, present petition may not be entertained. 4) Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material placed on record. Main grievance of the petitioner is that, daughter of the petitioner has converted her religion, which is against and contrary to the provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003. Under Section 3A therein, the petitioner being a father has right to lodge a complaint. But the R/SCR.A/9802/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 alleged act of conversion of religion took place at Rajasthan and daughter of the petitioner, who is major, entered into marriage, which is registered before the competent authority. Under the said Act, conversion of religion actuated by fraud, allurement or misrepresentation or by any other fraudulent means is committed, then o-ence should be registered. Here, no any allegation or voice raised by daughter of the petitioner, on the contrary, she voluntarily entered into a marriage by converting herself. Therefore, question does not arise to pass any direction. Not only that, perusing the application at Annexure-A addressed to Police Inspector, Anand Town Police Station it appears that the petitioner has made a representation for registration of FIR under Sections 197, 198, 318, 551 and 61 (2) of BNS. But no complaint is lodged for the alleged conversion. So far alleged irregularities in registration of marriage or as per the argument canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner that, marriage is ab-initio void under the Special Act. In absence of any mens rea or o-ence much less any o-ence committed, question does not arise to pass any direction. 5) Further, daughter of the petitioner attained majority and she has not raised voice qua any alleged conversion or qua marriage. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of Constitution. The same provides the right to life. Right cannot be taken away except through the law, which is substantially and procedurally fair, just and reasonable. Merely because a conversion occurs because of marriage, it per se cannot held to be an unlawful or a marriage done for the purpose of unlawful conversion and therefore, merely asking to lodge a complaint by father, this Court is not inclined to pass any order to register any complaint. Prima facie interfaith marriage between two consenting adults by operation of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 2003 interferes with the intricacies of marriage including the right to the choice of an individual, thereby infringing Article 21 of the R/SCR.A/9802/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 Constitution of India. In this regard, reference is required to be made on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of San Jahan Vs. Ashokan, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368. 6) At this stage, it would also be apposite to consider the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of M. Subramaniam vs. S. Janki reported in (2020)16 SCC 728 as well as the decision in the case of Imran Pratap Gadhi vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2025 SCC OnLine (SC) 678. 7) With the above observation, present application stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail statutory remedy before appropriate forum under the provisions of the CrPC / BNSS and as per the law laid down in the case of M. Subramaniam (Supra). After taking into consideration the complaint and other materials, if any, if the Police Inspector is of the view that the same discloses commission of a cognizable o-ence, then appropriate directions be issued for registration of the FIR forthwith at the concerned Police Station. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/10/2025 16:34:36