JUDGMENT : R.D. Kothari, J. Differences between two Shikh Gurudwara i.e. Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust and Kalgidhar Sewak Jatha has led the Secretary of the later trust to file the complaint for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 406, 420 r/w. 114 and Section 506(1) of IPC before the Shaher Kotda Police Station, Ahmedabad. The petitioner herein prays to quash the said complaint. 2. In response to RTI application by present petitioner, the Additional Police Commissioner has addressed a letter to Police Commissioner. This letter is at Page 257, relevant part of which reads thus: VERNACULAR MATTER 3. Relevant facts are thus:- The complainant Secretary of Kalgidhar Sewak Jatha allege that the petitioners herein who are President, Vice President and Secretary respectively of Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust are collecting the donation in the name of complainant-trust. It is the say of the complainant that the banners are prepared in the name of complainant-trust, therein, the petitioners have shown their own names as “the President and Secretary of the complainant-Trust”. It is also alleged that the petitioners have printed the letter-pad in the same fashion in the name of complainant-Trust. Thus, in the substance say of the complainant is by collecting donation in the name of complainant-trust, the petitioners have committed offences of cheating, forgery and etc. It is pertinent to note that during pendency of the petition, the police has completed investigation and charge-sheet is filed. Reference to relevant part of charge-sheet may be made little later. 4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners Shri Panchal has submitted that in the facts of the present case from the material on record, it is not possible to infer that essential ingredients of forgery and cheating are made out. It was submitted that alleged receiving of donation in the name of complainant-trust is misreading and has no substance. It was also submitted that no person from the public has come forward and has made any grievance of cheating or forgery. Further, it was submitted that though the complaint is filed for the offences under sections 467, 468 of the IPC, while filing the charge-sheet, the police has considered it proper not file charge-sheet for offfences under sections 467 and 468 of IPC. Further, it was submitted that though the complaint is filed for the offences under sections 467, 468 of the IPC, while filing the charge-sheet, the police has considered it proper not file charge-sheet for offfences under sections 467 and 468 of IPC. It was submitted that if the complainant has no case for the offence under sections 467 & 468 of IPC, then the case of cheating and breach of trust also falls to the ground. It was submitted that the petitioner No.1 has filed complaint against the office bearers of complainant-trust for forgery and cheating. Though the complaint of petitioners was prior in point of time, however, due to inaction of police, petitioners’ complaint came to be registered later on i.e. after registration of the complaint of the complainant. It was submitted that considering the material on record, present complaint deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn attention to the case of (i) ‘Satish Mehra v. State of N.C.T of Delhi’ reported in AIR 2013 SC 506 ; (ii) Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani AIR 2009 SC 2594 and (iii) G. Sagar Suri and anr. v. State of U.P. and ors. 2000 (2) GLH 191 . 7. On the other hand, Shri Dave opposing the present application has submitted that there is a prima facie case against the present petitioners and therefore, this Court, at this stage, should not interfere. It was submitted that the petitioners were wrongly projecting themselves as a trustee of the Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust, while none of the petitioners at the relevant time were trustees of the said Gurudwara. To support these submissions, learned advocate has drawn attention to Annexure-R2, page 136. Relying on the same, it was submitted that the copy of the PTR register would show that the petitioners were not trustees of Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust. Considering the material on record, it was submitted that the present case is not fit case for interference by this Court at this stage. Learned advocate has drawn attention to the case of 'Arvind Pandalal [Chairman-cum-Managing Director] S.T.C.I.L case, 2007 (2) GLR 1801 and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, AIR 2002 SC 671 . 8. Considering the material on record, it was submitted that the present case is not fit case for interference by this Court at this stage. Learned advocate has drawn attention to the case of 'Arvind Pandalal [Chairman-cum-Managing Director] S.T.C.I.L case, 2007 (2) GLR 1801 and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, AIR 2002 SC 671 . 8. In the case of 'State of Karnataka v. Devendrappa' (Supra), the complaint was filed by P.I. Attached to Fraud Squad, COD, Banglore and the allegation was preparing fake letterheads in the name of Karnataka Bank Limited, fake seals and by using the same bank guarantee as required in that case was furnished. The High Court had quashed the charge-sheet against the petitioner before it holding that there is no “direct evidence” against the petitioner. It was submitted that the analysis made by the High Court as if the said Court is holding the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the State appeal holding that meticulous analysis of the case before the trial in order to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the code is not proper. 9. In 'Arvind Pandalal Case' (supra), reliance was placed on Para 9 and 11, it was held that, “this Court would interfere only in an extraordinary situation where the continuation of criminal proceedings would result in manifest injustice to the concerned. The process of criminal proceedings once set in motion has to end and culminate in inquiry and trial. The power under Section 482 is an extraordinary power that can be exercised by this Court only to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 10. In 'Satish Mehra case (supra), the complaint was filed by the husband against his wife and his father-in-law alleging that the accused had unauthorisedly renewed and/or en-cashed the Fixed Deposit Receipts, that were in the joint name of the complainant and his wife. The complaint was in respect of about half dozan of Fixed Deposits Receipts. The total value of FDR was about Rs. 20,00,000/. In respect of the some of the FDRs, Hon'ble Apex Court had allowed the appeal and quashed the case. However, in respect of some of the FDRs, it was ordered that the case may proceed against the father-in-law of the complainant. 11. The total value of FDR was about Rs. 20,00,000/. In respect of the some of the FDRs, Hon'ble Apex Court had allowed the appeal and quashed the case. However, in respect of some of the FDRs, it was ordered that the case may proceed against the father-in-law of the complainant. 11. Learned advocate Shri Panchal drawn attention to this observation made in the said judgment that, “A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of fishing and roving enquiry. It would not be permissible in law to permit a prosecution to linger, limp and continue on the basis of a mere hope and expectation that in the trial some material may be found to implicate the accused. Such a course of action is not contemplated in the system of criminal jurisprudence that has been evolved by the courts over the years. A criminal trial, on the contrary, is contemplated only on definite allegations, prima facie, establishing the commission of an offence by the accused which fact has to be proved by leading unimpeachable and acceptable evidence in the course of the trial against the accused .....” (Para.19) The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to quash the charge-sheet against the bank official. 12. In the present case, the police has not filed charge-sheet for the offences under section 467 and 468 of IPC and therefore, case for the said offences is not required to be considered. The charge-sheet is filed for the offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. In substance offence of breach of trust (sec. 406), consist of any one of the four these basic act viz. Misappropriation, user, conversion and disposal of the property. Considering the nature of relationship between the parties and allegations made as to forgery and cheating, it is not possible to say that any of the above referred act of criminal breach of trust committed by the present petitioners or by any one of them. 13. The complainant has not entrusted any property to the petitioners; no case of misappropriation similarly from the allegations made offence of conversation or disposal of the property is not possible to infer. There is no such allegations. Perhaps the case of the complainant came nearer to the commission of offence by the petitioners “by using property” in the name of complainant-trust. 14. There is no such allegations. Perhaps the case of the complainant came nearer to the commission of offence by the petitioners “by using property” in the name of complainant-trust. 14. In this regard, learned advocate Shri Dave for the complainant has drawn attention to copy of the banner (Page 135). Learned advocate also placed reliance on statement of accused recorded by the police during the investigation and panchnama. The police has during the investigation found that the petitioners have collected Rs. 500/- from the P.W.4; Rs. 2101/- from P.W.5; Rs. 3100/- from P.W.6 and Rs. 25,000/- from P.W.9. All these amount said to have been collected in the name of complainant-trust. 15. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that strictly speaking the statement of the material witnesses are not in favour of the prosecution. In this proceeding, I would not like to refer these statements. To undertake the exercise of appreciating the statement of witnesses in this proceeding, would not be proper. The allegation of the prosecution of collecting the fund as is referred above, may be appreciated by referring other relevant facts and material on record. 15.1. The complainant says that earlier they were associated with Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust. Since the complainant has differences with the petitioner No. 1, the complainant-trust has shifted their office. In this regard learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn attention to Page 41, the letter purported to have been written by former President of 'Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust'. The said letter is addressed to Charity Commissioner, wherein, the complainant has given address of ‘Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha’ Trust as their address by using letter-pad of 'Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust' (Page 42). 15.2. It is the say of the petitioners that this letter is forged one. It is in respect of this alleged forged letter, the petitioners have lodged the complaint against the complainant-trust. Further, the complainant-trust was registered somewhere in 2009. Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust has filed an application under Section 70 of the Bombay Public Trust Act before the Charity Commissioner for cancellation of registration of the complainant-trust. The said application was filed along with delay condonation application. On behalf of complainant, the delay condonation application was opposed by filing written objection. Written objection is filed on 15.03.2012. the present complaint lodged on 31.03.2012. The said application was filed along with delay condonation application. On behalf of complainant, the delay condonation application was opposed by filing written objection. Written objection is filed on 15.03.2012. the present complaint lodged on 31.03.2012. the date of filing of complaint gives credence to the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners that the criminal complaint is filed because the petitioners had filed application for cancellation of application for registration of complainant-trust. Further, it was also submitted that the petitioners had addressed a letter to the concerned P.I. For registering the complaint against the present complainant. However, on account of cool response from said P.I., registration of complainant's complaint was delayed. In this regard, attention was drawn to letter addressed to the P.I. (page 57). Charge-sheet shows that the petitioners were arrested on 01.04.2012 at 5:00 p.m. It was submitted at the time of hearing that the petitioners were arrested from Gurudwara on the next date of registering the complaint, while in the facts and circumstances of the case do not call for such immediate action by the police. It is, in this regard, a paragraph quote in vernacular in opening part of the judgment required to be considered. 16. Statement of accused cannot be referred to or relied on Considering the nature of allegations made by the complainant. Panchnama on which much reliance was placed at the time of hearing cannot be of much help to the respondent. Learned advocate for the petitioners has drawn attention to the copy of the receipts said to have been issued by the petitioners (page 167 to 182). These receipts said to have been issued in response to amount received by the petitioners. It appears that attempt is to show payment is recovered by issuing receipts for the same. It is the say of the complainant that using its name, the petitioners have collected the donation. It is also say of the complainant that the petitioners are associated with 'Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust'. It is not say of the complainant that petitioners have pocketed the money. 16.1 At the time of hearing, attention also was drawn to the letter at Annexure-R1 (Page 131). The said letter is purported to have been written by petitioner No. 1, therein subject is mentioned that “Your donation for a noble cause”. It is not say of the complainant that petitioners have pocketed the money. 16.1 At the time of hearing, attention also was drawn to the letter at Annexure-R1 (Page 131). The said letter is purported to have been written by petitioner No. 1, therein subject is mentioned that “Your donation for a noble cause”. In the said letter, list of different six institutions i.e. Sikh institutions are given. Amongst Six Sikh institutions, one of the institution mentioned is 'Kalgidhar Sewak Jatha' complaint. Reading the letter, it cannot be said that by addressing such letter to public, the petitioners have intended to deceive the complainant. In fact at the end of letter, note mentioned in bold letters, it reads thus: “Note: Kindly donate by cheque in favor of “Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha” Emphasis Original. 02.07.2014 17. Gist of offence of breach of trust is an intention. Considering the allegation made by the complainant in the present case and considering the material on record, it is not possible to say that taking the say of the complainant and say of the other witnesses in complaint at face value offence as alleged is made out. No offence of breach of trust even prima facie is made out. Nor any offence of cheating is possible to infer. 17.1 It cant be said that the petitioners or any of the petitioner has tried to deceive the complainant either by making false or misreading representation or by any other action or omission. Nor it can be said that the present petitioners had offered the complainant any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention of the said property or intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he was not do or omitted, if he was not so deceive. 18. In the background and facts and circumstances referred above, let us consider whether the say of the complainant that the petitioners have committed criminal breach of trust “by using property” of the complainant as alleged. In this regard, the attention was drawn to one banner said to have been prepared by the petitioners in the name of complainant. The xerox of photo copy of the banner is produced on record. Secondly, the attention was drawn to letter-pad of 'Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust', wherein, the reference is made to the name of complainant-Trust. In this regard, the attention was drawn to one banner said to have been prepared by the petitioners in the name of complainant. The xerox of photo copy of the banner is produced on record. Secondly, the attention was drawn to letter-pad of 'Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust', wherein, the reference is made to the name of complainant-Trust. Taking second reference first, copy of it, is produced at page 131. If we perused the said letter, it is quite innocuous to say the least. Reference to the complainant-trust in the letter is a bona fide. In fact, in the said letter, the appeal is made to the public by placing specific note in bold letter “to donate by cheque in favour of the petitioners trust' Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust'”. Reference to this material does not help the complainant. As to the use of banner, the learned advocate for the petitioners at the time of hearing has submitted that xerox of photo copy to which attention was drawn at the time of hearing does not form part of charge-sheet papers. If, it is so, this assertion of the complainant loses considerable force. Besides that, there is only passing reference to the use of banner in the complaint and the case is not based on use of banner and collecting donation by that mode by the petitioners nor the tone and tenor of the complaint is on that line. 19. It was also submitted by learned advocate for the complainant that the petitioners were never trustees of Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust. This submission is advanced only at the time of hearing. In the complaint, it is specific case of the complainant that the petitioners herein are respectively President, Vide President and Secretary of ‘Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha Trust’. Such submission advancing new and different case than the case stated in complaint is difficult to accept. Besides that, it is not the say of the complainant that either the said trust of Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha or the Charity Commissioner has initiated any action against the petitioners on this ground and on the other hand, complainant says that earlier they (complainant) were associated with the said trust of the petitioners. Further, it is not say of the complainant that the petitioners themselves have pocketed the money. Further, it is not say of the complainant that the petitioners themselves have pocketed the money. It is the say of the complainant that in the name of complainant-trust, the petitioners were collecting the money means petitioners’ trust was collecting money/donation in the name of complainant-trust. In view of the complaint and nature of allegation made by the complainant, the submission that the petitioners were not trustees is not possible to consider. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that at the relevant time, Mr. Pritamsingh Bhatia was President and after his retirement, the change report is filed before Charity Commissioner's Office to insert the name of the petitioners. 20. Rereading of the complaint and affidavit in reply filed by the complainant (Page 126) gives impression that the parties have resorted to criminal proceedings on account of their strong differences. In view of the allegation made in the complaint, it is doubtful that either of the trust as a “person” can be said to have been suffer “injury” within the meaning of I.P.C. on account of “offence” committed by either party. All wrong do not attract provision of criminal law. Principle consideration for weighing the gravity of wrong alleged is, mens rea. It is on this test, case of parties herein fails. 21. In view of above, submission of learned advocate for the complainant that there is a prima facie case against the present petitioners is not possible to accept nor it is possible to accept that since the charge-sheet is filed in the present case, the Court should not interfere at this stage. In the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, the interference is called for and FIR lodged by the complainant is required to be quashed. Interference is called for to meet with the ends of justice. Accordingly, the complaint and consequent steps taken i.e. charge-sheet filed is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. At this stage, learned advocate for the complainant prays to stay the operation of the order for the period of 06 weeks to enable the complainant to approach the higher forum. Learned advocate for the petitioners opposes this pray. Considering the submission made by the learned advocate for the parties, operation of order is stayed for 06 weeks from today. At this stage, learned advocate for the complainant prays to stay the operation of the order for the period of 06 weeks to enable the complainant to approach the higher forum. Learned advocate for the petitioners opposes this pray. Considering the submission made by the learned advocate for the parties, operation of order is stayed for 06 weeks from today. Upon submission of learned advocates for the parties, it is hereby clarified that staying of operation of this order does not mean that the trial shall proceed. Operation of order is stayed only to enable the complainant to approach the higher forum. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed.