Hindu woman advocate raped, pressured to convert to Islam under false promise of marriage by senior Muslim lawyer in Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh
Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, India 
3 August, 2026
Case Summary
A Hindu woman advocate, belonging to the Dalit community in Chhatarpur, was raped by a senior advocate, Imtiaz Siddiqui, who established a physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage. He pressured her to convert to Islam and adopt Muslim customs. He recorded obscene photographs and videos of her, and threatened to circulate the material publicly. The Hindu woman said that Siddiqui lured her by assuring her that he would divorce his wife and accept her as his wife. After gaining private pictures and video of her, the accused started using it to blackmail her to convert to Islam. She has further said that the accused had been harassing her for the last two years and that the relationship and subsequent threats caused her serious harassment, leading her to approach the police. The complainant is a junior advocate, while Siddiqui is a senior advocate associated with the Chhatarpur District Court. According to the woman, the dispute intensified after Siddiqui’s wife came to know about the relationship. Both sides had previously submitted separate applications to the Superintendent of Police regarding the dispute. Acting on the woman advocate’s complaint, Civil Lines police registered a case against Siddiqui under provisions relating to rape, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and other applicable sections. Police have initiated an investigation into the case.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected in this case is: Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. Within this, the subcategory selected is: Forced conversion before marriage. The selected tertiary category within this is: Forced to follow non-Hindu religious practices. In such cases, a non-Hindu man is in a relationship with a Hindu woman when the pressure to convert her religion begins to manifest. In such cases, typically, two patterns emerge. First, when the relationship is consensual, and the religious identity of the perpetrator is known to the Hindu woman in the relationship, however, at some point during the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts to force the victim to convert her religion and give up her Hindu religious identity. The second is when the woman gets into a marriage with the man pretending to share her faith. Later, when the truth is revealed, the man starts pressuring the woman to convert her religion and give up her religious identity. In both situations, the methods used to force the victim to convert her religion often revolve around force-feeding beef, forcing her to wear hijab, forcing her to read the Kalma or even pressurising the victim to do ‘Nikah’, which is marriage under Islamic law, with a prerequisite being conversion to Islam. Cases where a Hindu woman consensually converts to Islam in a relationship will be left out of the hate crime database, even though it could be argued in several cases that the conversion was a result of religious brainwashing. The other subcategory selected is- Blackmailed to convert. When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman is blackmailed to convert her religion, owing to her religious identity of being a Hindu. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim, however, there could be cases where the relationship is not consensual and the non-Hindu man starts blackmailing a Hindu woman to convert her religion. In these cases, it is often seen that the Hindu woman is blackmailed with intimate photos and/or videos, threats of harm to her or her family, threats of violence etc. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. This incident has been documented under Predatory Proselytisation because it reveals multiple indicators that religion was central to the abuse inflicted on the victim. The first and most significant marker was the false promise of marriage, followed by pressure to convert to Islam and adopt Islamic religious practices. This was not merely pressure arising within a personal relationship. The demand that the victim abandon her Hindu faith demonstrates that religion was an integral part of the accused's objective. Had religion been incidental to the relationship, there would have been no insistence that she renounce her faith as a condition for continuing the relationship or marriage. The sequence of events further suggests that the promise of marriage was not an end in itself but a means to facilitate religious conversion. By first gaining the victim's trust and then introducing pressure to embrace another faith, the accused transformed what appeared to be a personal relationship into a mechanism for religious coercion. The attempt was not simply to marry the victim but to alter her religious identity before doing so. The incident also involved sustained coercive control through sexual exploitation and blackmail. After establishing the relationship, the accused sexually exploited the victim and subsequently threatened to circulate her intimate photographs and videos. Such threats were not isolated acts of intimidation. They became a means of compelling compliance by exploiting the victim's fear of social humiliation and the consequences such material could have for her personal and family life. The pressure to convert, when combined with blackmail, deprived the victim of the freedom to make an independent decision regarding her faith. This incident is a glaring example of how deep-seated intolerance can manifest in violent and coercive actions, with the ultimate goal of religious subjugation and domination. The deliberate nature of the deception and the subsequent attempt to force conversion highlights the extent of disdain the accused harboured for the victim's faith, making this a clear case of religiously motivated hate. Disclaimer: The exact date when the offences against the Hindu woman occurred was not specified in the available sources. The report confirms that the First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 4th August 2026. The Hinduphobia tracker records incident dates based on when the crime occurred rather than when it was reported or published. As no specific date of occurrence is available in the public domain, 4th August 2026 has been used as the incident date for documentation purposes only.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 1
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
