REV. FR. VINEET VINCENT PEREIRA ALIAS FATHER VINEET VINICENT PARESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 47677 of 2025

Rev. Fr. Vineet Vincent Pereira Alias Father Vineet
Vinicent Paresh                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                         :    Gaurav Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                    :    G.A.

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State-
respondent.

2. The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet dated
19.02.2024 and cognizance order dated 18.05.2024 along with entire
proceedings of Case No.15543 of 2024 (State Vs. Vineet Vincent Pereira),
arising out of Case Crime No.304 of 2023, under Section 295A IPC, P.S.
Muhammadabad, District Mau, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate,
Mau.

3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass him
since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by him in shape of
converting the religion of the marginalized section of the society illegally as
well as speaking against other religions. It has also been argued by learned
counsel for applicant that during investigation, it has already been concluded
by the concerned Investigating Officer that no illegal conversion of religion
has ever been done by the applicant. In sofar as the allegation in respect of
criticizing other religions is concerned, learned counsel for applicant has
submitted that by perusal of the narration of the FIR, no case is made out
against applicant under Section 295-A IPC. Learned counsel for applicant
further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicant to
corroborate him with the alleged offence. It has also been argued by learned
counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation, the
concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant
whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took
cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of
                                                        NA528 No. 47677 of 2025
                                2

law and as such, same may be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the
application by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be
raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and
would involve appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that at the time of
taking cognizance, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court
concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial.

5. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the
parties and perusal of the entire material available on records, this Court
finds that the only question which arises in this case is whether the act of
applicant as alleged through narration of the FIR comes under the ambit of
offence mentioned in Section 295-A IPC or not?

6. For better appreciation, Section 295A of I.P.C. which deals with
deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any
class by insulting its religion or religious belief, is reproduced hereinbelow:

"295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings
of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.--Whoever, with
deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any
class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs
or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the
religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three
years], or with fine, or with both."

7. By bare perusal of the narrations made in the FIR wherein it has been
mentioned that in his prayer meet, applicant frequently states that there is
only one religion which is Christian and also hurts the sentiments of a
particular religion i.e. Hindu, whereas India is a land where people of all
faiths and beliefs in secular state as defined by Constitution of India, live
together, therefore, it is wrong for any religion to claim that it is the only
true religion as it implies a disparagement of other faiths. The opening line
of the said provision itself speaks about deliberate and malicious intention of
outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizen by insulting its
religion or religious faith, meaning thereby, the act of the applicant comes
under the ambit of Section 295-A IPC and as such, at this stage, it cannot be
said that prima facie, no case is made. All the submission made at the bar,
relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by
this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 BNSS.
                                                                                           NA528 No. 47677 of 2025
                                                                    3

                                    8. At the stage of taking cognizance/summoning, the Magistrate is only
                                    required to record a prima facie opinion, based on the material on record,
                                    and is not expected to hold a mini trial or to examine the defence of the
                                    accused. In judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W.
                                    Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241,
                                    it was held that the test which was required to be applied was whether there
                                    is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient
                                    ground for conviction". In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of
                                    Investigation and Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465, it was reiterated that the
                                    limited purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process
                                    being tentative as distinguished from the actual evidence produced during
                                    trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed
                                    before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused"
                                    and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt". At the stage of taking
                                    cognizance, a court's primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case
                                    exists, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an
                                    offense has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or
                                    the evidence.

                                    9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application
                                    being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

                                    10. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the applicant
                                    from availing the remedies which are available to him as per law.

                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Vivek Kr.
                                                                                        (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad