IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17734 OF 2025 DATE: 19.01.2026 Between:

Khaja Moinuddin … Petitioner/accused And The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Proseuctor, High Court at Hyderabad, through S.H.O., P.S. Mirchowk, Hyderabad District and another ... Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.10607 of 2020 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Section 52-A of Waqf Amendment Act, 2013 .

2. Heard Sri Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he has never committed any offence and is falsely implicated in the present crime with all concocted and baseless allegations. The petitioner is charge sheeted for the offence under Section 52(A) of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2013, solely on the allegation that the petitioner demolished a portion of a structure, which is a Waqf property. The only ground on which the petitioner is seeking quashment of the proceedings against him is that there is prohibition under Section 52-A(3) of the Waqf Act, whereby a Court is prohibited from taking cognizance of any offence under Section 52-A except on a complaint made by the Board or any officer duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf.

4. In the present case, the complaint was lodged before the S.H.O., but according to Section 52A of Waqf Act, it has to be lodged before the concerned Court.

5. Section 52A of the Waqf Act is extracted hereunder:

“52A. Penalty for alienation of waqf property without sanction of Board.—(1) Whoever alienates or purchases or takes possession of, in any manner whatsoever, either permanently or temporarily, any movable or immovable property being a waqf property, without prior sanction of the Board, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years:

Provided that the waqf property so alienated shall without prejudice to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, be vested in the Board without any compensation therefor.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) any offence punishable under this section shall be cognizable and non-

bailable.

(3) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this section except on a complaint made by the Board or any officer duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf.

(4) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this section.

6. Perused the record.

7. In the similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order in Crl.P.No.1790 of 2022 dated 08.02.2023, wherein it was held that the lodging of the complaint was not proper and did not conform to the statutory position. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners therein were quashed.

8. In the present Criminal Petition, the case was registered based on the complaint lodged before the S.H.O., which is in violation of Section 52-A of the Waqf Act. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. Thus, applying the said analogy to the present case, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.10607 of 2020 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Section 52-A of Waqf Amendment Act, 2013, are hereby quashed. However, this order will not preclude the competent authority from filing complaint, if so advised, before the concerned Court.

9. In the result, thi