JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. Manan Mehta, Ld. APP and Mr. Hardik Dave, Ld. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Heard Learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. 3. Considering the fact that the matter is pending for admission since 2011, it has been taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned advocates for the parties, more particularly when interim relief is operating since last five years against further proceedings of criminal trial and thereby some proceedings are pending though the subject matter is quite clear, whereby the complaint certainly needs to be quashed at-least qua present petitioner if at all not for all the accused shown in the FIR. 4. The petitioner herein is holding license under Indian Christian Marriage Act, which authorizes him to solemnize and grant certificate of marriage. Pursuant to such license, it seems that the petitioner has issued a marriage certificate in favour of one Pinakin Divyakant Macwan and Vishruti, daughter of the complainant - Anilkumar Shukla when they claimed that they have got married. However, it seems that since Pinakin Macwan is a Christian, whereas Vishruti is a Hindu girl and her father Anilkumar Shukla respondent No. 2 herein has filed one FIR being C.R. No. II 109/2010 on 31/7/2010 before Nadiad West Police Station, alleging that his daughter Vishruti Anilkumar Shukla is illegally converted to be Christian and in doing so, Pinakin Macwan, so also present petitioner and mother of Vishruti, namely Kailasben, who is wife of the complainant, have helped Vishruti to renounce Hinduism and to become a Christian and, therefore, they have committed an offence under sections 2[a][ii], 2[b] and 3 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 [for short 'the Act'], so also under rule 3[1] and 5[1] of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Rules [for short 'the Rules']. It is, therefore, contended by the complainant in his complaint that all the four accused had managed to convert Vishruti on 10/2/2009 from being Hindu to Christian without getting prior permission of the District Magistrate i.e. Collector, as provided under the above Act and the Rules and hence they should be prosecuted and punished. 5. It is, therefore, contended by the complainant in his complaint that all the four accused had managed to convert Vishruti on 10/2/2009 from being Hindu to Christian without getting prior permission of the District Magistrate i.e. Collector, as provided under the above Act and the Rules and hence they should be prosecuted and punished. 5. Based upon such complaint, the police has investigated the offence and filed charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. I - 124/2010 on 4/10/2010 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nadiad. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged such FIR and charge-sheet praying to quash and set aside the same contending that-- "[1] The complaint is filed after more than 17 months. [2] Present petitioner has simply registered the marriage on 10/2/2009 and that he has not to ascertain or verify that whether Vishruti has obtained prior permission of the District Magistrate for converting her religion. [3] It is also alleged in the FIR that the petitioner has committed offence by performing marriage of Vishruti with Pinakin. [4] Section 2[a][ii] of the Act, under which complaint and charge-sheet are filed, are simply providing definition of "allurement"; whereas section 2[b] defines the expression "convert" contending that allurement has no application to the fact of present case. Whereas the petitioner has not made any effort to convince Vishruti to renounce the Hindu religion and to adopt Christian religion in any manner whatsoever, but it was the act and decision of Vishruti only to renounce her religion and to become Christian and, therefore, none of the above expressions would be applicable in the present case, when there is no allegation regarding forceful conversion of religion in any manner whatsoever. [5] The petitioner has not taken part in the marriage ceremony or in any act or ceremony regarding conversion and, therefore, in absence of any role of the petitioner either in conversion or in marriage of Vishruti, he is not involved in any of such activity and, therefore, he has not committed any offence as alleged. [6] In fact, Vishruti herself converted on her own willingness into Christianity because she wanted to perform marriage with Pinakin as per Christian rites because she loves Christianity and she has filed such disclosure in following words: "I am a spinster. I am free to get married with Pinakin Divyakant Macwan. It has become necessary to make this affidavit to change my religion. I am free to get married with Pinakin Divyakant Macwan. It has become necessary to make this affidavit to change my religion. Renouncing the Hindu religion, I acknowledge to follow the Christian religion." [7] Therefore, mere affirmation of marriage between Christian and any other person belonging to another religion would not result into commission of any offence as alleged. [8] There is no sanction granted by the competent authority to conduct investigation and to prosecute accused, which is required as per the provisions of section 6 of the Act, which read as under: "6. Prosecution to be made with the sanction of District Magistrate No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or such other authority not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate as may be authorized by him in that behalf." [9] Similarly, there is no clarity that offence has been investigated and cognizance has been taken by the Police Inspector as provided under section 7, which prohibits the investigation and inquiry by officer below the rank of police officer. [10] In addition to such ground, the petitioner has produced all relevant documentary evidence on record including disclosure by Vishruti that she is converting on her own into Christianity because she loves Christian religion and she wants to marry Pinakin on her own. Even mother of Vishruti is supporting her for such marriage, but father of Vishruti is unhappy with such marriage and, therefore, there is such complaint." 6. On perusal of entire record, it is clear that each of the grounds pleaded and pressed by the petitioner has substance and, therefore, it is quite clear and obvious that there is no role of the petitioner into conversion of religion by Vishruti and otherwise also, he is not liable for such conversion and when there is no sanction or proper investigation, there is substance in the petition to quash and set aside the complaint and proceedings qua present petitioner when other accused have not challenged the proceedings against them. 7. As against that, Ld. Advocate for the respondent No. 2 has tried to convince the Court that such conversion is not accepted and it is without permission and, therefore, proceedings should not be quashed. 7. As against that, Ld. Advocate for the respondent No. 2 has tried to convince the Court that such conversion is not accepted and it is without permission and, therefore, proceedings should not be quashed. However, it is quite clear that so far as alleged offences are concerned, when there is no offence of any nature committed by the petitioner at all, there is no substance in such submission. 8. It cannot be ignored that the petitioner has also preferred one Special Civil Application No. 18287 of 2011 challenging the order of the competent authority to cancel the license of the petitioner for such offences wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under and thereby allowed the petition of the present petitioner: "6. Apropos the order, further affidavit is filed at page No. 62, wherein the deponent of the affidavit i.e. petitioner has in paragraph No. 2 narrated the entire procedure for conversion that shows that conversion to Christianity is a specific procedure. The sacrament required to be performed by the concerned authorized bishop and the petitioner is admittedly not a bishop nor a person authorized under the provision for conversion and hence there ought not to have been question of converting said Vishrutiben. The State has not filed any affidavit-in-reply controverting this position. In fact, in my opinion that the concerned authority, before canceling license, should have inquired and recorded its satisfaction with regard to the conversion of Vishrutiben into Christianity by the appropriate sacrament ceremony. In absence of any proof that Vishrutiben was in fact converted into Christianity against her will, he could not have been proceeded in any manner. Even the show cause notice itself was without jurisdiction, as there existed no proof of Vishrutiben under going any ceremony for conversion into Christianity When these facts were not existing before authority, the authority did not have any jurisdiction to issue notice in form of show cause notice." 9. In view of above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. Thereby FIR being C.R. No. II -109/2010 registered with Nadiad West Police Station, Nadiad, District Kheda, so also Charge-sheet No. 124/2010 and criminal proceedings initiated thereupon, shall stand quashed and set aside so far as present petitioner is concerned. Interim relief stands vacated. Rule is made absolute accordingly.