ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) is filed by the petitioners to quash C.C. No. 108 of 2016 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, Kadapa District, as the learned Magistrate has committed error in taking the cognizance and issuance of summons to the petitioners/accused.

2. Aggrieved by taking the cognizance of the complaint in C.C. No. 108 of 2016, said to be filed by the Syed Rahamathulla/2nd respondent herein, said to be Inspector Auditor, Waqf Board, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

3. The facts in nutshell are as follows:

(i) The petitioners are A.1 to A.7, A.9 and A.11 to A.13 in C.C. No. 108 of 2016 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddutur, Kadapa District and cognizance was taken under Section 406 IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995.

(ii) The further contention of the petitioners is that though the property in Survey No. 565 to an extent of Ac. 0.73 cents and an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents in Survey No. 291, are notified in the Gazette belonging to Modampalli Mosque situated at Modampalli Village, Kadapa District, as per Task Force Report dated 04.12.2015 and 05.12.2015, the same was sold out by self styled Committee in the year 1995 and in turn it was sold away to different persons.

(iii) On the complaint of the 2nd respondent herein i.e. Syed Rahamathulla S/o Musthan, Inspector Auditor, Waqf, to the Station House Officer, Proddutur P.S. the self styled Committee alleged to have not shown any records and accounts which is headed by the petitioners and as such it has been alleged that they are indulged financial irregularities, breach of trust and misappropriation of money by wrongful gain.

(iv) On the basis of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/Syed Rahamathulla, a crime has been registered under Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995 vide Cr. No. 286 of 2015 on the file of Proddutur Rural Police Station and after investigation the investigating officer deleted the Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and filed charge sheet under Section 406 of IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995.

(v) On which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered as C.C. No. 108 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Proddutur, Kadapa District.

4. Heard Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.

5. Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet is not maintainable either in law or on the facts and at the outset, the Inspector Auditor/2nd respondent/Syed Rahamathulla, is not a competent person to give the complaint and the self observation in the complaint is not tenable as the properties mentioned by him was sold in the year, 1995 itself and there is a delay of 20 years and without explaining the delay and name of the person who alleged to have sold the properties to the third parties also not disclosed in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the complaint itself is frivolous, illegal and not sustainable as per Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995. He further submits that even if the property is notified as Waqf property, it is only the Waqf Board, who is entitled to file a complaint under Section 52(A)(3) of the Waqf Act 1995 after passing resolution, but not the 2nd respondent herein.

7. He further submits that on perusal of the complaint, none of the ingredients under Section 406 of IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act 1995, are made out for maintaining the charges against them and complaint said to be filed by the 2nd respondent through the 1st respondent is nothing but short of colourable exercise of power by the prosecution.

8. On the other hand, Sri Srava