Karnataka High Court
Mahadevu M vs State By on 23 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:28263
WP No. 21179 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 21179 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVU M
S/O MADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.428, KORRGHALLI VILLAGE,
BELAVADI POST, YELAWALA HOBLI,
MYSORE 570018.
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED
...PETITIONER
(BY MS. ARCHITHA SURESH, ADV. FOR
SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High
AND:
Court of
Karnataka
1. STATE BY
VIJAYANAGARA PS,
22ND CROSS, 2ND STAGE,
VIJAYANAGARA,
MYSORE - 570017.
REP. BY HCGP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:28263
WP No. 21179 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. SURESH S
S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
MEMBER OF FLYING SQUAD
TEAM-2, SHIFT-2,
CHAMUNDESHWARI CONSTITUANCY-215,
MYSORE - 570010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO A. TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 23.01.2024
FILED IN CRIME NO.64/2023 BY THE 1 RESPONDENT POLICE
STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF 5TH JMFC COURT, MALALAVADI,
JAYANAGARA, MYSORE CITY AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3, 6 AND 7 OF RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) ACT, 1988 IN CRIME NO.
64/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE C, QUA THE PETITIONER AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:28263
WP No. 21179 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
"a. Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari to Quash the Chargesheet dated 23.01.2024 filed in Crime No.64/2023 by the 1st Respondent Police Station pending on the file of 5th JMFC Court, Malalavadi, Jayanagara, Mysore City as against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6 & 7 of Religious Institution (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 in Crime No.64/2023, vide Annexure C, qua the petitioner, b. Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Order dated 07.02.2024 whereby the 5th JMFC Court, Malalavadi, Jayanagar, Mysore City has taken the cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 3, 6 & 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 in Crime No.64/2023, vide Annexure D, qua the petitioner.
c. Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the proceedings pending on the file of 5th JMFC Court, Mysore City, in CC No.64/2024, for the offences punishable under Section 3, 6 & 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 in so far as it relates to the petitioner, vide Annexure D, d. Grant such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint dated 09.04.2023 registered as an FIR in Crime No.64/2023 against the petitioner / accused No.3 and against two persons Mavinahalli Siddegowda - accused No.1 and Ramesh - accused No.2 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3, 6, 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988' for short). In pursuance of the same, the Police Authorities conducted investigation and filed the impugned charge sheet pending consideration in C.C.No.64/2024 against petitioner - accused No.3 and 5 other persons before the trial Court for the aforesaid offences.
3. In this context, it is relevant to state that apart from the fact that the petitioner was not named or arraigned in the original FIR and complaint, the charge sheet material comprises of statement of witnesses, documents, material etc., do not establish the commission of alleged offences qua the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that under identical circumstances, the co-ordinate bench of this Court in -5- NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR Crl.P.Nos.7545/2023, 6950/2023 and 3392/2023 at Annexures
- G, H and J, has held as under:
"In Crl.P.No.7545/2023:
The petitioner calls in question the proceedings in Crime No.41/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 171(F) of the IPC and Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
2. Heard the learned counsel Kumari Keerthana Nagaraj appearing for the petitioner. The offence alleged is the one punishable under Section 171(F) of the IPC and Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
Learned counsel would take this Court to the documents appended to the petition to contend that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P. No.3392/2023 disposed off on 02.06.2023. This Court has held as follows:
2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of crime in Crime No.30/2023 for the offences under Section 171(F) of IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the issue in this lis has been covered by the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2077/2019 [Devananda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another] dated 22.04.2019 and Criminal Petition No.5021/2020 [Arif Pasha and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another] dated 26.11.2020.
4. The learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1-State would admit the position of the issue in this lis and the issue in the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR aforesaid covered judgments rendered by the Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court.
5. In Criminal Petition No.2077/2019, this Court has held as follows:-
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 in favour 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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 in otherwords 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.
6. In Criminal Petition No.5021/2020, this Court has held as follows:-
9. Having heard the arguments, the points that would arise for determination by this Court are:
In the event of a religious institution being used for the purpose of use of canvassing for elections or votes, by invoking divine displeasure or spiritual -8- NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR censure could a person making such a speech in a religious institution be prosecuted under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988?
In the event of this Court coming to a conclusion that amongst several offences alleged against the accused, the cognizable offences being quashed and only a non- cognizable offence remains, could the matter on quashing cognizable offences be continued as regards the non-cognizable offence ?
What order?
10. ANSWER TO POINT No.1: In the event of a religious institution being used for the purpose of use of canvassing for elections or votes, by invoking divine displeasure or spiritual censure could a person making such a speech in a religious Institutions be prosecuted under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988?
Section 3 of the Religious Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference "3. Prohibition of use of religious institutions for certain purposes. - No religious institution or manager thereof shall use or allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution -
(a) for the promotion or propagation of any political activity; or
(b) for the harbouring of any person accused or convicted of an offence under any law for the time being in force; or
(c) for the storing of any arms or ammunition; or -9- NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR
(d) for keeping any goods or articles in contravention of any law for the time being in force; or
(e) for erecting or putting up of any construction or fortification, including basements, bunkers, towers or walls without a valid licence or permission under any law for the time being in force; or
(f) for the carrying on of any unlawful or subversive act prohibited under any law for the time being in force or in contravention of any order made by any court; or
(g) for the doing of any act which promotes or attempts to promote disharmony of feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or
(h) for the carrying on of any activity prejudicial to the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; or
(i) for the doing of any act in contravention of the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 (69 of 1971)".
A reading of the said provision indicates that there is prohibition on religious institutions or manager thereof from using the religious institutions for purposes stated therein. Therefore, it implies that it is the person/s in control of such religious institutions who is prohibited from allowing such a religious institutions to be used for the purposes as prohibited therein. The said provision does not make any reference to the person using the Religious Institutions or the premises for the prohibited purposes. That may be different offence altogether if committed and would not come under Section 3 of the Religious Act. In the present facts, the petitioners one who had made
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR certain speeches invoking divine displeasure and or spiritual censure in the masjid calling upon the followers of the masjid to vote for the petitioners as and when they contest for elections i.e. for promotion or propaganda of a political activity. While doing so, they have also made various comments which may not be relevant for the purpose of the Act. Any such speech if made contrary to any penal provision action could be taken against those persons under those provisions. Section 3 of the Religious Act does not provide for action to be taken against the speech maker in a religious institution.
The procedure as regards violation of Section 3 of the Religious Act is restricted only to religious institution or the manager, thereof or whoever is in control of the said religious institution. Thus, in the present facts and circumstances, the authority concerned could have initiated action against the manager or whoever is in control of the said Mosque/masjid but not the petitioners herein for such activities.
Reserving such liberty to initiate such action against the Religious institutions or manager or persons in-charge of the Religious institutions, the proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned is required to be quashed insofar as the offences under Section of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
11. ANSWER TO POINT No.2: In the event of this Court coming to a conclusion that amongst several offences alleged against the accused, the cognizable offences being quashed and only a non- cognizable offence remains, could the matter on quashing cognizable offences be continued as regards the non-cognizable offence?
As observed above, the offences which have been alleged against the petitioners are
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR under Section 171F of IPC and Section 3 and 7 of the Religious Act.
Having discussed the applicability of Section 3 and 7 of the Religious Act and having come to the conclusion that they are not attracted to the present case insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the offence that remains is that under Section 171F of IPC. The said offence is non-cognizable offence. However, now that by way of the above reasoning, the proceedings against petitioners insofar as offences under Section 3 of the Religious Act are quashed, what remains is the offence under Section 171F of IPC. At the time when the proceedings were initiated against petitioners, since they were both cognizable and non- cognizable offences, the prescribed under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. was not required to be followed and therefore, not followed. Now that the cognizable offence under Section 3 of Religious Act has been quashed, what remains being non- cognizable offence, the same cannot be permitted to continue by itself, as such, the same is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-Police to follow the procedure under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. insofar as the offences alleged against the petitioners under Section 171F are concerned and thereafter and thereafter initiate necessary proceedings.
7. In the light of the issue in question being covered by the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, I deem it proper to allow this petition on the same reasons rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.
In the light of the issue standing answered in the judgment rendered by this Court supra, the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER The petition is allowed. The FIR and the Crime No.41/2023 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Court, Kushtagi, Koppal, * is quashed."
In Crl.P.No.6950/2023:
1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No.68/2023 registered for the offence under Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P. No.3392/2023, disposed off on 2nd June 2023.
3. Learned HCGP would admit the position of the issue in this lis and the issue in the aforesaid covered judgments rendered by this Court.
4. In Crl.P. No.3392/2023, this court has held as follows:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for Respondent No.1-State.
2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of crime in Crime No.30/2023 for the offences under Section 171(F) of IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the issue in this lis has been covered by the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2077/2019 [Devananda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another] dated 22.04.2019 and Criminal Petition No.5021/2020 [Arif Pasha and
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another] dated 26.11.2020.
4. The learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1-State would admit the position of the issue in this lis and the issue in the aforesaid covered judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
5. In Criminal Petition No.2077/2019, this Court has held as follows:-
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 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 in favour of first petitioner and request so made came to be recorded on mobile phone and uploaded on social media. Thus, petitioners committed an offence punishable Section 171F have 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
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 in otherwords 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
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
6. In Criminal Petition No.5021/2020, this Court has held as follows:-
9. Having heard the arguments, the points that would arise for determination by this Court are:
9.1 In the event of a religious institution being used for the purpose of use of canvassing for elections or votes, by invoking divine displeasure or spiritual censure could a person making such a speech in a religious institution be prosecuted under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988?
9.2 In the event of this Court coming to a conclusion that amongst several offences alleged against the accused, the cognizable offences being quashed and only a non-
cognizable offence remains, could the matter on quashing cognizable offences be continued as regards the non-cognizable offence ?
9.3 What order?
10. ANSWER TO POINT No.1: In the event of a religious institution being used for the purpose of use of canvassing for elections or
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263
WP No. 21179 of 2025
HC-KAR
votes, by invoking divine
displeasure or spiritual censure could a person making such a speech in a religious institution be prosecuted under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988?
10.1 Section 3 of the Religious Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"3. Prohibition of use of religious institutions for certain purposes.-No religious institution or manager thereof shall use or allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution-
(a) for the promotion or propagation of any political activity; or
(b) for the harbouring of any person accused or convicted of an offence under any law for the time being in force; or
(c) for the storing of any arms or ammunition; or
(d) for keeping any goods or articles in contravention of any law for the time being in force; or
(e) for erecting or putting up of any construction or fortification, including basements, bunkers, towers or walls without a valid licence or permission under any law for the time being in force; or
(f) for the carrying on of any unlawful or subversive act prohibited under any law for the time being in force or in
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR contravention of any order made by any court; or
(g) for the doing of any act which promotes or attempts to promote disharmony of feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or
(h) for the carrying on of any activity prejudicial to the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; or
(i) for the doing of any act in contravention of the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 (69 of 1971)".
10.2 A reading of the said provision indicates that there is prohibition on religious institutions or manager thereof from using the religious institutions for purposes stated therein. Therefore, it implies that it is the person/s in control of such religious institutions who is prohibited from allowing such religious institutions to be used for the purposes as prohibited therein. The said provision does not make any reference to the person using the Religious Institutions or the premises for the prohibited purposes. That may be different offence altogether if committed and would not come under Section 3 of the Religious Act. In the present facts, the petitioners one who had made certain speeches invoking divine displeasure and or spiritual censure in the masjid calling upon the followers of the masjid to vote for the petitioners as and when they contest for elections i.e. for promotion or
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR propaganda of a political activity. While doing so, they have also made various comments which may not be relevant for the purpose of the Act. Any such speech if made contrary to any penal provision action could be taken against those persons under those provisions. Section 3 of the Religious Act does not provide for action to be taken against the speech maker in a religious institution.
10.3 The procedure as regards violation of Section 3 of the Religious Act is restricted only to religious institution or the manager, thereof or whoever is in control of the said religious institution. Thus, in the present facts and circumstances, the authority concerned could have initiated action against the manager or whoever is in control of the said Mosque/masjid but not the petitioners herein for such activities.
10.4 Reserving such liberty to initiate such action against the Religious institutions or manageror persons in- charge of the Religious institutions, the proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned is required to be quashed insofar as the offences under Section of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
11. ANSWER TO POINT No.2: In the event of this Court coming to a conclusion that amongst several offences alleged against the accused, the cognizable offences being quashed and only a non-
cognizable offence remains, could the matter on quashing cognizable
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR offences be continued as regards the non-cognizable offence?
11.1 As observed above, the offences which have been alleged against the petitioners are under Section 171F of IPC and Section 3 and 7 of the Religious Act.
11.2 Having discussed the applicability of Section 3 and 7 of the Religious Act and having come to the conclusion that they are not attracted to the present case insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the offence that remains is that under Section 171F of IPC. The said offence is non- cognizable offence. However, now that by way of the above reasoning, the proceedings against petitioners insofar as offences under Section 3 of the Religious Act are quashed, what remains is the offence under Section 171F of IPC. At the time when the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, since they were both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the prescribed under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. was not required to be followed and therefore, not followed.
11.3 Now that the cognizable offence under Section 3 of Religious Act has been quashed, what remains being non-cognizable offence, the same cannot be permitted to continue by itself, as such, the same is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-Police to follow the procedure under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. insofar as the offences alleged against the petitioners under Section 171F are concerned and thereafter and thereafter initiate necessary proceedings.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. In the light of the issue in question being covered by the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Co- ordinate Benches of this Court, I deem it proper to allow this petition on the same reasons rendered by the Co- ordinate Benches of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) FIR dated 06.04.2023 filed by the 1st Respondent-Alwandi Police Station in Crime No.30/2023, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Koppal, for the offence punishable under Section 171(F) of IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, stands quashed.
In view of disposal of this petition, IA No.1/2023 filed for Stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, the said application stands dismissed."
In the light of the issue in question being covered by the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court, I deem it appropriate to allow this petition on the same reasons rendered by this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) FIR dated 06.05.2023 filed by the 1st respondent Kollegal Rural Police State in Crime No.68/2023 on the file of the Prl.
Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court Kollegala for the offence punishable under
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, stands quashed.
In Crl.P.No.3392/2023:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for Respondent No.1-State.
2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of crime in Crime No.30/2023 for the offences under Section 171(F) of IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the issue in this lis has been covered by the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2077/2019 [Devananda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another] dated 22.04.2019 and Criminal Petition No.5021/2020 [Arif Pasha and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another] dated 26.11.2020.
4. The learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1-State would admit the position of the issue in this lis and the issue in the aforesaid covered judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.
5. In Criminal Petition No.2077/2019, this Court has held as follows:-
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 in favour
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 in otherwords connected Hence, 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
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
6. In Criminal Petition No.5021/2020, this Court has held as follows:-
9. Having heard the arguments, the points that would arise for determination by this Court are:
9.1 In the event of a religious institution being used for the purpose of use of canvassing for elections or votes, by invoking divine displeasure or spiritual censure could a person making such a speech in a religious institution be prosecuted under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988?
9.2 In the event of this Court coming to a conclusion that amongst several offences alleged against the accused, the cognizable offences being quashed and only a non- cognizable offence remains, could the matter on quashing cognizable offences be continued as regards the non-cognizable offence ? 9.3 What order?
10.ANSWER TO POINT No.1: In the event of a religious institution being
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR used for the purpose of use of canvassing for elections or votes, by invoking divine displeasure or spiritual censure could a person making such a speech in a religious institution be prosecuted under the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988?
10.1 Section 3 of the Religious Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"3. Prohibition of use of religious institutions for certain purposes.- No religious institution or manager thereof shall use or allow the use of any premises belonging to, or under the control of, the institution-
(a) for the promotion or propagation of any political activity; or
(b) for the harbouring of any person accused or convicted of an offence under any law for the time being in force; or
(c) for the storing of any arms or ammunition; or
(d) for keeping any goods or articles in contravention of any law for the time being in force; or
(e) for erecting or putting up of any construction or fortification, including basements, bunkers, towers or walls without a valid licence or permission under any law for the time being in force; or
(f) for the carrying on of any unlawful or subversive act prohibited under any law for the time being in force or in contravention of any order made by any court; or
(g) for the doing of any act which promotes or attempts to promote disharmony of feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities; or
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR
(h) for the carrying on of any activity prejudicial to the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; or
(i) for the doing of any act in contravention of the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 (69 of 1971)".
10.2 A reading of the said provision indicates that there is prohibition on religious institutions or manager thereof from using the religious institutions for purposes stated therein. Therefore, it implies that it is the person/s in control of such religious institutions who is prohibited from allowing such religious institutions to be used for the purposes as prohibited therein. The said provision does not make any reference to the person using the Religious Institutions or the premises for the prohibited purposes. That may be different offence altogether if committed and would not come under Section 3 of the Religious Act. In the present facts, the petitioners one who had made certain speeches invoking divine displeasure and or spiritual censure in the masjid calling upon the followers of the masjid to vote for the petitioners as and when they contest for elections i.e. for promotion or propaganda of a political activity. While doing so, they have also made various comments which may not be relevant for the purpose of the Act. Any such speech if made contrary to any penal provision action could be taken against those persons under those provisions. Section 3 of the Religious Act does not provide for action to be taken against the speech maker in a religious institution.
10.3 The procedure as regards violation of Section 3 of the Religious Act is restricted only to religious institution or the manager, thereof or whoever is in control of the said
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR religious institution. Thus, in the present facts and circumstances, the authority concerned could have initiated action against the manager or control of the said whoever is in Mosque/masjid but not the petitioners herein for such activities.
10.4 Reserving such liberty to initiate such action against the Religious institutions or manager or persons in-charge of the Religious institutions, the proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned is required to be quashed insofar as the offences under Section of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988.
11. ANSWER TO POINT No.2: In the event of this Court coming to a conclusion that amongst several offences alleged against the accused, the cognizable offences being quashed and only a non-cognizable offence remains, could the matter on quashing cognizable offences be continued as regards the non-cognizable offence ?
11.1 As observed above, the offences which have been alleged against the petitioners are under Section 171F of IPC and Section 3 and 7 of the Religious Act.
11.2 Having discussed the applicability of Section 3 and 7 of the Religious Act and having come to the conclusion that they are not attracted to the present case insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the offence that remains is that under Section 171F of IPC. The said offence is non-cognizable offence. However, now that by way of the above reasoning, the proceedings against petitioners insofar as offences under Section 3 of the Religious Act are quashed, what remains is the offence under Section 171F of IPC. At the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR time when the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, since they were both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the prescribed under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. was not required to be followed and therefore, not followed.
11.3 Now that the cognizable offence under Section 3 of Religious Act has been quashed, what remains being non-cognizable offence, the same cannot be permitted to continue by itself, as such, the same is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-Police to follow the procedure under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. insofar as the offences alleged against the petitioners under Section 171F are concerned and thereafter and thereafter initiate necessary proceedings.
7. In the light of the issue in question being covered by the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, I deem it proper to allow this petition on the same reasons rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) FIR dated 06.04.2023 filed by the 1st Respondent-Alwandi Police Station in Crime No.30/2023, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Koppal, for the offence punishable under Section 171(F) of IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, stands quashed.
In view of disposal of this petition, IA No.1/2023 filed for Stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, the said application stands dismissed."
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28263 WP No. 21179 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the judgments of this Court referred to supra, I am of the view that the continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner - accused No.3 would amount to abuse of process of law.
5. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed;
ii) The entire proceeding in Crime No.64/2023 of Vijayanagara Police Station, pending on the file of the V J.M.F.C., Court, Malalavadi, Jayanagara, Mysore City, in C.C.No.64/2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, qua the petitioner - accused No.3 are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97