Victim of Gujarat's first love jihad plaint files petition to quash FIR

AHMEDABAD: Victim of Gujarat’s first complaint filed under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act commonly referred to as love jihad law has approached the Gujarat high court demanding the FIR lodged against her husband, in-laws, the qazi and witnesses should be quashed asserting that she was not forced to convert.
The 25-year-old complainant, a Hindu girl from Vadodara, is the first petitioner in the quashing petition filed in the high court on August 5. While other accused claim their innocence, the complainant-victim has asserted that she was not forced to give up her religion. The lawyer refused to divulge details of the petition, which is likely to come up for the hearing next week.
Usual practice of filing petition in the cases of consent quashing in the high court is that the victim is made a party respondent, who tells the court that he or she does not have any issue if the FIR is quashed. But in this case, the victim herself has become a petitioner demanding quashing of the FIR.

On June 17, the woman had filed a complaint at Gotri police station against her husband, who is a Muslim but allegedly first identified himself as Sam Martin on social media. He befriended her and then got married in February. She complained that she was forced to convert her religion. The husband, his parents, a qazi who solemnized the marriage and two witnesses to the marriage have been booked under the provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Amendment Act which came into force in the state from June 15 this year. The husband has been booked on charges of domestic violence, rape and sodomy as well.
Two weeks later, the woman retracted from her complaint and stated on oath that she was not forced to change her religion. She submitted her affidavit in a sessions court in Vadodara and requested the court to grant bail to her husband. However, looking at the charges levelled in the case, the Vadodara court refused bail to her husband on July 5 by taking into consideration the victim’s statement made before a judicial magistrate under section 164 of the CrPC, in which she reportedly reiterated her allegations.
On August 5, the husband’s bail plea was withdrawn from the high court after the judge was not inclined to grant him bail.