The court determined that administrative decisions cannot constitute criminal offences under IPC sections invoked in this case.

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.

251 of 2022 on the file of the first respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Haji S.M.S Shaik Jalaludeen was the founder of Khadar Mohideen College and Boys and Girls School. He died on 02.10.1986. The trust which was running the educational institution decided to construct an Arch in memory of the said Haji S.M.S Shaik Jalaludeen. They got necessary permission and on 28.10.2020, the centenary arch was erected and an inauguration function was also conducted.

3. The further case of the prosecution is that Mohamed Meera Sahib and seven other trustees were selected by the Waqf Board and they took charge of the administration of the trust. The defacto complainant was the unsuccessful candidate and he challenged the validity of the order passed before the Waqf Tribunal. This application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, CRP was filed before this Court.

4. As a result of the above steps take by the defacto complainant, the incumbents were enraged and they demolished the centenary arch and thereby it cost huge disturbance in the locality. It is under these circumstances, the complaint came to be given and an FIR was registered in Crime No.251 of 2022 for offence under Sections 153, 504 and 427 of IPC. This FIR has been put to challenge in the present quash petition.

5. While entertaining this quash petition, this Court directed the respondent police to proceed with the investigation and not to file the final report till the disposal of the case.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 7. The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioners is that after the new office bearers took charge, a Board resolution was passed on 17.02.2022 whereby, it was decided to remove the name of Haji S.M.S Shaik Jalaludeen and to engrave the name of the original founder of the trust. It was submitted that this administrative decision that was taken by the Board pursuant to which it was carried out, cannot become a subject matter of criminal prosecution. It was further submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR is taken as it is, no offence is made out against the petitioners. It was further submitted that the complaint is attended with mala fides and it has been given only with the view to spite the new office bearers due to private and personal grudge.

8. The learned Government Advocate submitted that investigation has been completed in this case and the draft final report is also ready and the same was not filed before the concerned Court in view of the interim order passed by this Court. The learned Government Advocate also placed the copy of the draft final report before this Court.

9. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the new office bearers did not have any right to remove the arch and to cause damage and such act on the part of the accused persons clearly constitutes an offence. The learned counsel submitted that the investigation cannot be stopped in this case since the act on the part of the accused persons has caused disturbance among two groups which had the propensity of resulting in a violence. Therefore, it was submitted that there are no merits in this case and the present petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

10. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that a centenary arch was erected in the year 2020 with the name of Haji S.M.S Shaik Jalaludeen engraved in the arch. Subsequently, there was a change in management and the management took a decision to remove the name. A resolution