JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.

1. Heard the arguments advanced by Shri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Javed Hussain Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Attrey Dutt Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttar Pradesh and perused the material available on record.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been moved on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant in Case No. 22 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 465 of 2009 (State v. Arshad Rashid Khan), under Section 7/13(d)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 19882, as well as to quash the F.I.R. dated 19.05.2009, charge-sheet dated 20.08.2016 and summoning order dated 04.11.2016.

3. Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the order dated 31.01.2000, which has been passed by the accused-applicant in respect of Waqf No. 102-A, Moradabad is a judicial order, therefore, the applicant would have protection of the umbrella of [The] Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (Act No. 59 of 1985)3. Therefore, in case the said order was erroneous, that would not be a ground to prosecute the applicant. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Vijendra Pal Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others, 2009 (2) AWC 1243, the judgment of Bombay High Court in Pravin Niwritti Sawant v. Hon'ble Shri J.B. Anandgaonkar Saheb, Ex. JMFC, Ichalkaranji & Ors.: 2008 CRI.L.J. 984 and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad and Another (2007) 4 SCC 247.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the cognisance order, stating that the order dated 31.01.2000 has been passed by the accused-applicant with mala fide intention in order to provide illegal benefit to the persons who had purchased the waqf property illegally, which was sold to several persons in violation of the provisions of law. Consequent upon coming into light that the mutawalli (manager) of the said Waqf property has alienated it in contravention to the provisions of law on the basis of forged permission purported to have been granted by the Waqf Board, the said property was ordered to be recovered under Section 49B of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 19604 and the mutawalli Mohd. Ayyub, who had executed the said sale deeds, was removed and another person, namely, Chaman Begum, was appointed as administrator by one Farhat Ali, earlier Controller of the Waqf Board vide order dated 12.06.1990. The said order was later on reviewed by the accused-applicant, by his order dated 31.01.2000 and the sale deeds which were earlier declared to be invalid, were declared by him to be valid and mutawalli-ship of Mohd. Ayyub was restored.

5. Before appreciating the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to mention, in succinct, facts of the present case, which are as follows:-

Shri Prahlad Singh Tyagi, Inspector, Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment, Bareilly Sector, lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant along with two other co-accused, namely, Mohd. Ayyub and Mohd. Anas, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code, 18605 and Section 7/13(d)(ii) of the Act of 1988, registered as Case Crime No. 465 of 2009 at Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Moradabad on 19.05.2009 at 10.00 a.m., wherein it has been mentioned by him that one complaint was received, dated 25.05.2000, by the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment through confidential letter dated 14.06.2001 in respect of holding of an open enquiry. The said complaint pertained to the allegations made against the Waqf Boards of Districts-Bareilly, Badaun, Pilibhit and Moradabad. Pursuant to the holding of enquiry, which was assigned to Bareilly sector, a report was made available to the Government of U.P. on 20.12.2006. After consideration thereo