JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code"), are as under: 2. A complaint under Section 500 of the r Indian Penal Code (IPC) was filed by the respondent No. 2, Allauddin, son of Shri Vashrat Khan, against the present petitioners, with the allegations that in the 'Mohalla' in which, the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 reside, there are certain properties, which are wakf-properties and are to be managed by the Rajasthan Wakf Board ("the Wakf Board"), which constitutes committees for the management of different properties and that for some time, no committee was constituted by the Wakf Board for managing the properties situated in the 'Mohalla' concerned, and thereupon, the petitioners, of their own, had started managing the said properties and that later on, the Wakf Board constituted a committee and appointed the respondent No. 2 as its Chairman, and thereafter, the respondent No. 2 asked for the accounts from the petitioners, who called a meeting of the members of the community, who, under the resolution dated 18th January, 1993, ex-communicated the respondent No. 2 and decided that the members of the community should have no concern with him. It was alleged that this action of the petitioners amounted to an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, and it was prayed that the petitioners be summoned, tried and punished in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and recorded the statements of the witnesses and thereupon summoned the petitioners vide the order dated 6th March, 1993. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. The only act amounting to an offence under Section 500 of the IPC, as alleged in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2, was the resolution, passed by the members of the community, according to which resolution, the members have decided not to have any contacts with the respondent No. 2 and to treat him as excommunicated. The decision about the social sanction in regard to the respondent No. 2, taken by the members of the community, cannot, in any way, amount to an offence. The decision about the social sanction in regard to the respondent No. 2, taken by the members of the community, cannot, in any way, amount to an offence. If the members of the community feel that the respondent No. 2 has done such act, which de-bars him from being given the benefits of the community, such decision cannot be said to attract any criminal provision. If the respondent No. 2 is aggrieved by the wrongful decision of the members of the community, he may have a civil right, which may be enforced by him by taking appropriate civil proceedings. The learned Magistrate, in my view, wrongly took cognizance on the basis of the complaint and proceeded to record statements of the witnesses under Section 202 of the Code. In my view, the complaint-proceedings are nothing but abuse of the process of the Court, and if they are allowed to continue, this will cause unnecessary harassment and injustice.Consequently, allowing this petition, I quash the proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint dated 10th February, 1993, filed by the respondent No. 2.The petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******