Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ravi vs State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6950 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAVI S/O KARUGATH C.,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
#72D, S C STREET,
BASTIPURA, KOLLEGALA TOWN,
KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGAR,
KARNATAKA-571440.
2. SRI. A.R. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O LATE B. RACHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/A #44, 8TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE, MYSORE KARNATAKA-570009.
VISHAL (BY SRI. KARTHIK .N., ADVOCATE)
... PETITIONERS
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL AND:
Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
VISHAL NINGAPPA BY KOLLEGALA RURAL POLICE STATION,
PATTIHAL R/BY SPP OFFICE,
Date: 2023.08.30 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
11:23:29 +0530 BANGALORE-560001.
2. P. ARASA SHETTY S/O NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
FLYING SQUAD, PROFESSOR,
DIST. EDUCATION & TRAINING CENTER,
CHAMARAJANAGAR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANOOPKUMAR, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 06.05.2023 FILED BY
1st RESPONDENT KOLLEGALA RURAL POLICE STATION IN
CR.NO.68/2023 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND JMFC COURT KOLLEGALA FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE P/U/S.7 OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION OF
MISUSE)ACT 1988.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
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
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
renderedby 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
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
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
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
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 Courthas 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
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
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 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
reproducedhereunder 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
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
(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
(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
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
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
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
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
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 ofthe Religious Act.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
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 thereafterand
thereafter initiate necessary proceedings.
7. In the light of the issue in question being
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
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 thefollowing:
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."
5. 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. Accoridngly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:30401
CRL.P No. 6950 of 2023
(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 Section 7 of the
Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse)
Act, 1988, stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*/Ct:Bck
