The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of proceedings without sufficient evidence and in violation of procedural requirements amounts to an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

P.N. Desai, J. - This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') praying to quash the complaint, FIR and filing of charge sheet in Lingasugur police station in Crime No. 127/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 171H and 188 of Indian Penal Code (fort short 'IPC') and Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act (for short 'R.I. Act') and Section 109 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963, (for short 'K.P. Act') pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC at Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.

2. It is contended that on 01.04.2018 at 01.20 p.m. the petitioner has violated the code of conduct by holding a meeting during the election thereby committed the aforesaid offences. On the basis of complaint lodged by one Shankarmurthi flying squad for election, this complaint came to be registered. Thereafter, the police after investigation have filed the charge sheet. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

3. Heard Sri. Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the continuation of the proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 171H and 188 of IPC and Section 7 of R.I. Act and Section 109 of K.P. Act, is illegal. It is further contended that in view of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. the Court cannot take cognizance of these offences unless a public servant files a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, filing of charge sheet by the police is illegal. Further, invoking provision 7 of the R.I. Act, was not called for, as on bare reading of Section 7 of the Act, would clearly discloses that for contravention of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the R.I. Act, it is the manager and every person connected with such Religious Institution who would be liable to be punished. Section 171H of IPC and Section 109 of K.P. Act, are all non-cognizable offences. The police cannot investigate without permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, initiation of proceedings is against the abuse of process of law. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

5. Against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the Magistrate has properly issued summons and there are materials to show that the petitioner has committed offences as stated above. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

6. I have perused the complaint lodged by the said squad. It is stated that when he heard that election meeting was going on, he went to the said spot and found that there was nobody present i.e., neither this petitioner nor his supporters at the spot. He enquired the other persons and some have told that no meeting was held and some persons told that meeting was held. Therefore, he lodged the complaint stating that by the side of the Temple the meeting was held. I have perused the statements of the witnesses, which does not indicate anything against the petitioner. The statements of witnesses are all hearsay. The statements does not show where they were present, how they have seen any such meeting and how they are deposing is also not forthcoming. Further the place of incident as per panchanama shows that it is a public place. The Temple is on the western side and it is clearly mentioned that place of incident is a public place. Therefore, how the ingredients of R.I. Act are attracted is also not forthcoming.

7. It is evident that there is no whisper about any such meeting held by the petitioner in the premises of the Temple. There is no material to show that this petitioner has solicited votes in any such meeting.

8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P. No. 2077/2019 dated 22.04.2019 in the case of Devananda s/o. Pulasinga Chowhan and another vs. State of Karnataka and another, has discussed the said