Point of Law: Cheating - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner cannot claim benefits of Section 108A of Act, 1995 - offence committed under Section 61 of Act, 1995 and FIR lodged under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC are altogether different and petitioner cannot take protection of Section 300 of Cr.P.C., or Article 20(2) of Constitution of India.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (Criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No. 108 of 2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bastar, Jagdalpur on 04.03.2020 against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471/34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that as per contents of F.I.R dated 4/03/2020 it has been alleged that the petitioner and other co-accused persons who were working as office bearers of Anjuman Islamia Society (In Short Society), committed financial irregularities for the period from 2011 to 2019 and caused loss to the society to the tune of Rs.3,58,56,530/- thereby they have committed offence punishable under Sections 420, 406. 467, 468 and 471/34 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Waqf Board has already filed a complaint against the petitioner and other co-accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, Bastar for financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by them since 2011 bearing Criminal Case No. 159 of 2017, therefore, the registration of FIR in respect of same incident is in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the Anjuman Islamia is society registered under Firms and Society Registration Act Waqf Board has taken over management of Anjuman Islamia Society and after taking over the Waqf Board has removed the petitioner from the post of President though he was elected President Society. He would further submit that the petitioner has challenged the order of removal by filing an appeal before the Waqf Tribunal which was dismissed and thereafter, he preferred a civil revision bearing No. 117 of 2019 before this court which is still pending consideration.

4. He would further submit that the Waqf Act, 1995 (for short, “the Act, 1995”) has prescribed the procedure and provisions to take cognizance of offences committed in respect of the Waqf property, as per Section 61(2)(b) and Section 61(3) of the Act, 1995., cognizance can be taken only upon filing of the complaint by Waqf Board or its authorized officer. As per Section of 72(6) (7)(8) of the Act, 1995 the detailed procedure has been prescribed for any irregularity which has been committed in respect of Waqf property but that has not been followed, therefore, the registration of FIR against the petitioner is against the law. He would further submit that in the FIR nothing has been explained what kind of irregularity the petitioner has committed. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR has been registered against the petitioner on the false ground that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons caused huge financial loss to the Waqf Board, without verifying audit report of Society. He would further submit that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is of the civil nature i.e., if there is financial irregularity, initiation of FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law, therefore, he prayed for quashing of proceedings of FIR No. 108 of 2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, Bastar. He would rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Sundar Babu and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 244.

5. This court has issued notice to the respondents and respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply in which they have contended that FIR has been rightly registered and there is no miscarriage of justice, therefore, no interference is called for in this case by this court. It has been further submitted that FIR has been registered after thorough investigation which is carried out by the investigation agency.

6. Respondent No.3/Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board has filed an application for intervention of the writ petition mainly contending that Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board has conducted enquiry as the amount of whic