MP High Court: Damoh School Forced Hijab FIR Quashing Denied

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash an FIR against Ganga Jamuna Higher Secondary School in Damoh over allegations of forced religious practices and coercion.
• The court ruled that the case involves more than just a dress code issue, requiring a full trial to assess disputed facts.
• Charges include sections of the IPC, Juvenile Justice Act, and the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.
• Petitioner arguments regarding school management, informant identity, and the timing of sanction under Section 196 CrPC were rejected.
• The trial has substantially progressed, with 32 of 33 prosecution witnesses already examined, influencing the court's decision against quashing.

The High Court emphasized that the prosecution's case extended beyond mere dress code issues, encompassing allegations of religious coercion and threats that necessitate a full evidentiary trial.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against the Ganga Jamuna Higher Secondary School in Damoh, which faces serious allegations including forced religious practices and coercion. In a significant ruling, the Jabalpur Bench determined that the case extends far beyond a simple dress code dispute, involving complex factual claims that demand a full trial rather than being resolved at the preliminary quashing stage. Justice Himanshu Joshi issued a unified order on August 4, 2026, dismissing three separate petitions that sought to overturn the charges.

These petitions all originated from a single inquiry into complaints lodged against the Damoh-based institution, which is operated by the Ganga Jamuna Welfare Society. The FIR, registered as Crime No.498/2023 at Police Station Kotwali, Damoh, on June 7, 2023, initially cited sections 295-A, 120-B, and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequent investigation led to the inclusion of Sections 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice Act, alongside Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, underscoring the gravity and breadth of the accusations.

The legal proceedings were initiated following an inquiry mandated by the Collector, prompted by an incident on June 6, 2023, that sparked communal tension in Damoh. This earlier event involved members of the Bajrang Dal allegedly intercepting the District Education Officer's vehicle and throwing ink on him. The FIR itself was based on a student's statement detailing compulsory wearing of Hijab and Dupatta from Class VI onwards, a prohibition on traditional Hindu symbols like Tilak and Kalawa, mandatory Urdu instruction, and the recitation of specific prayers, all purportedly enforced through threats.

Petitioners Shailendra Kumar Jain and Abdul Wasim Bari, represented by advocate Zamir Mohammad Shah, argued that Jain was not part of the school's management committee for the 2023-26 period. They also contended that the FIR's informant was the inquiry committee itself, rather than a converted individual or a victim, which they asserted was a requirement under Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, citing the precedent set in *Jerald Almeda vs State of Madhya Pradesh*. Separately, teacher Anas Athar and peon Rustam Ali, represented by Senior Advocate Shashank Shekhar and advocate Samresh Katare, challenged the framing of charges, specifically arguing that cognizance under Section 295-A read with Section 120-B IPC was taken without the mandatory sanction required by Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), as this sanction was only obtained on September 18, 2023, after the charge-sheet had already been filed.

Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh, representing the State, opposed all three petitions, highlighting the student's detailed statement of alleged religious coercion. Addressing the sanction issue, Singh asserted that the necessary sanction was presented to the trial court before charges were formally framed. He referenced Supreme Court decisions, including *Dharmesh @ Nanu Nitinbhai Shah* and *State of MP vs Bhooraji*, which establish that a defect in sanction does not automatically invalidate proceedings unless it results in a miscarriage of justice.

Justice Joshi concurred that merely wearing a particular dress, absent the statutory elements of conversion or an attempt to convert, does not constitute an offense. However, the High Court firmly stated that the prosecution's case was not predicated solely on the wearing of a Hijab. Instead, it encompassed broader allegations, including the prohibition of Tilak and Kalawa, the imposition of compulsory religious practices, and the use of threats and coercion. The court concluded that these multifaceted claims necessitate a thorough appreciation of evidence during a trial, rather than being summarily dismissed at the quashing stage. Regarding the sanction, the court held that a subsequent sanction, if obtained before charges are framed, does not automatically render the cognizance order void, aligning with the precedents cited by the State. Furthermore, the court noted that the trial had already progressed substantially, with 32 out of 33 prosecution witnesses having been examined, deeming this a pertinent factor against exercising its inherent jurisdiction to terminate the prosecution. The argument concerning parents' affidavits about government-prescribed books was also rejected.

This ruling by the MP High Court signals a robust judicial stance against attempts to quash FIRs involving allegations of religious coercion in educational environments, particularly when the claims extend beyond simple dress code issues. The court's emphasis on the need for a full trial to test disputed facts underscores that such serious allegations will not be lightly dismissed. For legal practitioners, the decision provides clarity on the court's interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act 2021 and the procedural validity of subsequent sanctions under Section 196 CrPC, especially in cases where trials are already well underway.

The court's refusal to intervene despite the advanced stage of the trial, with nearly all prosecution witnesses examined, highlights a judicial reluctance to disrupt ongoing proceedings unless there is a clear and undeniable legal infirmity. This outcome reinforces the principle that allegations of religious conversion charges in Damoh, particularly those involving vulnerable individuals like students, will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny through the full legal process, rather than being curtailed by technical arguments at an early stage.

This ruling signals that Indian courts will scrutinize religious coercion allegations in educational settings beyond mere dress code issues, requiring a full trial. Lawyers defending or prosecuting such cases should note the court's stance on the validity of subsequent sanction under Section 196 CrPC, particularly when trials are substantially progressed, impacting strategies for quashing petitions.

Source: Reporting based on judicial records.