Heard Sri. Prasanna D.P, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for State. Perused the records.
2. Member of the flying squad team No.3 who was working at the relevant point of time as Commercial Tax Officer had been deputed on election duty, submitted a report on 02.05.2018 to the Vijayapura Rural Police Station alleging thereunder that on 26.04.2018 between 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. first petitioner who was Janatha Dal (Secular) candidate had entered Mahalakshmi Temple at Kunnur village and that point of time unknown person had solicited votes from members who had gathered at the temple namely, requested the members to vote infavour of first petitioner and request so made came to be recorded on mobile phone and uploaded on social media. Thus, petitioners have committed an offence punishable Section 171F IPC and Section 7 of The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
3. It is the contention of Sri.Prasanna D.P, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that ingredients of Section 171F of IPC or Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, is not attracted since person who is alleged to have recorded the incident namely, Sri. Lakku Wodeyar is not cited as witness in the charge sheet and as such continuation of proceedings against petitioners even when there is no allegation against first petitioner in particular would not be conducive in the interest of justice. Hence, he prays for quashing of said proceedings.
4. Per contra, Sri. S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondents would support the case of the prosecution and prays for dismissal of petition.
5. At the outset it requires to be noticed the very invoking of Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, by prosecution was not called for, inasmuch as bare reading of Section 7 of the Act would clearly disclose that for contravention of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act, it is the manager and every person connected with such Religious institution who would be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. It is not the case of prosecution that petitioners herein were persons incharge of religious institution or inotherwords connected to religious institution. Hence, continuation of proceedings for the said offence against petitioners would definitely be contrary to the provisions of the Act. Insofar as invoking of Section 171F of IPC against petitioners is concerned, when read with conjunction with allegation made in the complaint, same would disclose that petitioners had not solicited the votes but on the other hand it is alleged that a third party had announced ore mike seeking vote on behalf of first petitioner and said person is said to have one Sri. Lakkur Wodeyar, who has not been cited as witness in charge sheet or as an accused. Hence, continuation of proceedings against petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Section 171F of IPC would not be justifiable and even if prosecution is taken to its logical end it would not end in conviction of the accused and thereby directing the petitioners to undergone the ordeal of trial would definitely be abuse of process of law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Criminal petition is allowed. (2) Proceedings pending against petitioners in Spl.C.C.No.881/2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 171F of IPC and Section 7 of The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, by Vijayapura Rural police station, on the file of LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, is quashed and petitioners are acquitted of aforesaid offence. SD/- JUDGE
Comments