“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 one 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 undergone the ordeal of trial would definitely be abuse of process of law.”
