JUDGMENT A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Jagat Jagruti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, at Chakur is a Trust running educational institutions. Petitioners are trustees of the said trust. 2. Respondent No.3 is the first informant. Respondent No.3 had sent a letter dated 2/2/2013 to the Police Inspector – Respondent No.2, by R.P.A.D. It was intended to report commission of an offence by the petitioners herein. However, the envelope containing the report was received back undelivered. Therefore, the respondent No.3 sought direction from the higher authorities. It appears that the police had secured opinion of the advisor/Deputy Director of Prosecution before registering the FIR. Ultimately, based on said report, and the opinion, the Crime No. 63 of 2013 dated 22nd March, 2013 was registered in Chakur Police Station for the offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B of IPC, against various accused named therein, who are present petitioners. 3. The petitioners have moved this court by filing present petition for quashing FIR and Crime No. 63 of 2013 registered with Police Station Chakur. 4. The case of petitioners, espoused before us, can be condensed and stated as follows: [a] Father of respondent No.3, he himself and other relatives have been in association with the Trust in various capacities since many years in past. [b] Respondent No.3, his father and other family members have been associated with the Trust in question, for many years. The respondent No.3 desired that Sushant Manmath Swami, who is complainant's brother be given employment in the educational institution. Said request of the respondent No.3 was not conceded to by petitioners. [c] Due to said discontent and sheerly to vindicate said grievance, the respondent no.3 has filed subject matter FIR, and he is keen and out to leave no stone unturned against the petitioners. [d] Even if the text of the complaint, even on the face may be considered to contain truth, and even without waiting to have those proved, those do not constitute description of commission of offence whatsoever, and hence, the prayer for quashing the FIR is made. [e] It is contended that at this stage even one word contained in the FIR, is not sought to be disputed as a ground of challenge, still, the description contained in the report falls short even of bare description of offences (Sections of IPC) whichever are alleged or mentioned while registering the FIR. 5. [e] It is contended that at this stage even one word contained in the FIR, is not sought to be disputed as a ground of challenge, still, the description contained in the report falls short even of bare description of offences (Sections of IPC) whichever are alleged or mentioned while registering the FIR. 5. In support of the challenge, learned Advocate for the petitioners have relied upon following reported judgments: [a] Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another Vs. Sambhajirao Chadrojirao Angre and others. (AIR 1988 SC, 709). [b] GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Limited. (2013)4 SCC 505 ; [c] Suneet Gupta Vs. Anil Triloknath Sharma and others. (2008) 11 SCC 670 . [d] Devendra and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another. (2009)7 SCC 495 . 6. In the course of hearing, learned Advocate for the respondent no.3, has put forth the following points : [a] That the FIR is not an encyclopedia and, therefore, at this stage any scrutiny as regards adequacy of averments in FIR is not permissible. [b] The Police is within its competence to take cognizance of when commission of a cognizable offence is reported. [c] The contents of FIR do adequately describe commission of offences of Cheating, fabrication of records etc and, therefore, it is a fit case where investigation should not be hindered. [d] Petitioners have umpteen number of remedies at every stage, namely: - Showing the truth to the Investigating Officer. - In the event, charge sheet is filed, they can challenge it. - In the event, charges are framed, they can apply for discharge, etc. - Ultimately, they can face the trial, and prove their innocence. [e] At this stage when investigation has not begun, throttling of investigation would hinder the process of administration of justice and, therefore, writ petition should be dismissed. 7. In support of above submissions, reliance is placed on following judgments : [a] Superintendent of Police, CBI and others Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh. (2003)6 SCC 175 ; [b] Ashabai Machindra Aghagale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. 2009(1) Supreme 732 . [c] Surender Kaushik and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. (2013)5 SCC 148 . 8. The limited question, which this court has to decide is: Whether text of the FIR considered without going into the truth of the facts narrated therein consists of description of facts, constituting ingredients of offences ? 2009(1) Supreme 732 . [c] Surender Kaushik and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. (2013)5 SCC 148 . 8. The limited question, which this court has to decide is: Whether text of the FIR considered without going into the truth of the facts narrated therein consists of description of facts, constituting ingredients of offences ? 9. In order to deal with and decide the question formulated by us, we had directed learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 to focus and isolate as to the contents of FIR, which do from the point of view of the informant comprise of the description of the ingredients of the offences committed by the accused persons. We had also directed learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 to mark by underlining those statements in the FIR. 10. This exercise was directed by this court in order to ensure that no deficiency in communication gap is left as regards submissions made before this court and understanding the same by this court, from same perspective. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, had underlined the relevant text in FIR, which appears at page 93 and 94. 11. It would be useful to refer to the text contained in the FIR, ad-verbatim, with underlining done by the first informant the respondent No.3, for due identification of relevant averments, as follows: “HINDI” [quoted from Exhibit R12, at page No. 221 of paper book] 12. Translation of the text of the imputations due to which offences under various sections are registered, is not incorporated in the affidavit in reply directly or indirectly. Therefore, for the sake of convenience of adjudication, this court has translated the said text from FIR which was underlined by learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 which portion is again quoted with said underlining in the foregoing paragraph No.13. 13. Translation of the text relied upon by the respondent no.3 from the complaint before the police:- “I have never applied for membership to Jagat Jagruti Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. I have never paid membership fees. I have not applied for renewal of membership after expiry of spell of 5 years. I did not pay any fees for renewal. I did not receive even once notice of meeting of general body during last 15 years. I have never signed the attendance register of any meeting. I have never paid membership fees. I have not applied for renewal of membership after expiry of spell of 5 years. I did not pay any fees for renewal. I did not receive even once notice of meeting of general body during last 15 years. I have never signed the attendance register of any meeting. Still, by fabrication of record and preparation of bogus documents, the record of my attendance has been created. Signatures done in my name thereon, are bogus, which I have not done. The members of the managing committee of the society have, by their said act, cheated me. Members of the committee have also cheated the Assistant Charity Commissioner by furnishing said bogus records before him and have thereby cheated even the Government of Maharashtra. Therefore, I submit this application, requesting that the members of the Managing Committee occupying office at relevant time, namely, Shri Sangayya Ramayya Swami (President) deceased, Sarvottam Eknathrao Kulkarni (Vice President), Naresh Rajeshwarrao Patil (Secretary) Ashok Madhavarao Patil (Jt. Secretary), Ismail Ibrahim Pathan (Treasurer) deceased, Manik Ramchandra Patil (Member, deceased, Nagnath Dinayya Swami (deceased), Somnath Dinayya Swami, Sudhakar Trimbakrao Motipiwle, Shivprasad Gangadhar Shete, Babu Vishwanath Jankar, Rajeshwar Sambhajirao Patil, be prosecuted by registering offence against them, for cheating, fabrication of records, conspiracy etc.” [Note : sub paragraphs are made for convenience at the time of reading and the emphasis is given as regards the plea of cheating.] 14. Now, this court has to examine the said underlined text from the FIR, with the measuring device, as to whether, the said description answer the test of description of ingredients of commission of offence. 15. In order to assess as to whether description contained in the FIR, do constitute commission of offence, this court had given peaceful and curious consideration to the text of averments. 16. In order to be able to objectively assort the ingredients, it is necessary to have a quick look at Section 415 of the IPC, which describes cheating. 17. 15. In order to assess as to whether description contained in the FIR, do constitute commission of offence, this court had given peaceful and curious consideration to the text of averments. 16. In order to be able to objectively assort the ingredients, it is necessary to have a quick look at Section 415 of the IPC, which describes cheating. 17. Cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC, requires that the person so deceived, to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or to intentionally induce the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 18. It is seen that the accusation of forgery of record and of criminal conspiracy contained in the FIR are aimed at the amplification of main accusation of cheating. Therefore, the accusation of cheating plays the pivotal role. 19. After reading the report from any angle, none amongst the ingredients of delivery of any property or any act or omission thereby deceiving the complaint, is not even barely described. All that is described is that, record is created in his name and it is shown to have been forged. 20. Without describing as to whether and the manner in which the acts of accused constituting forgery do in any manner prejudice the complainant, in the manner as described in Section 415 of IPC, cognizance can not be taken by police. If at all any wrong is done by the accused persons named in the FIR, would be inter se themselves and any loss or prejudice suffered by or caused to the respondent No.3 is not stated or pleaded even barely by indication too. It is also seen that any description as to loss or prejudice due to the acts of accused, its extent, magnitude or description whatsoever is not narrated in FIR. 21. Apart from his own deception, the respondent No.3 claims that the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the State Government are also cheated. 22. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, is an authority constituted under the Bombay Public Trust Act, and is vested with the powers, duties and functions under said Act. 21. Apart from his own deception, the respondent No.3 claims that the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the State Government are also cheated. 22. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, is an authority constituted under the Bombay Public Trust Act, and is vested with the powers, duties and functions under said Act. The Assistant Charity Commissioner is vested with powers of civil court. Therefore, if any offence is committed by the accused in the process of any investigation or enquiry, it is an independent matter to be dealt with by the competent authority under the Bombay Public Trust Act, under the provisions of Chapter XIV read with Chapter XXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent No.3 has no role to play in such matter particularly by way of lodging a FIR in that regard. 23. Moreover, facts described in the FIR which are emphasized by underlining and supplying emphasis, do not conform to the description of narrating as to how fabrication has occurred and as to how the State and/or Assistant Charity Commissioner is cheated. In the background that it may at the most turn out to be offence purported to be committed before the competent court, no cognizance would be competent by the police in absence of report by the Public servant concerned. 24. In spite of the fact that the opinion was sought by the police as to registration of offence from Deputy Director of Prosecution and that the offence was registered thereafter, does not excuse the police from application of mind on their own before registration of offence. 25. The act of the police officer taking cognizance is thus, bad not only due to non application of mind, but it is bad even if application of mind is presumed. Impugned registration of FIR is vitiated by reason of jurisdictional error of failing to note that there does not exist description of commission of any offence in the FIR and hence, cognizance of the report lodged by respondent No.3 is wholly unjust and is not tenable in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. 26. In view that, entire case rests on obvious facts, it is considered unnecessary to discuss the precedents. 27. In the result, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). 28. In the circumstances, parties are directed bear their own costs.