ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) is filed by the petitioners to quash C.C. No. 108 of 2016 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, Kadapa District, as the learned Magistrate has committed error in taking the cognizance and issuance of summons to the petitioners/accused. 2. Aggrieved by taking the cognizance of the complaint in C.C. No. 108 of 2016, said to be filed by the Syed Rahamathulla/2nd respondent herein, said to be Inspector Auditor, Waqf Board, the present Criminal Petition is filed. 3. The facts in nutshell are as follows: (i) The petitioners are A.1 to A.7, A.9 and A.11 to A.13 in C.C. No. 108 of 2016 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddutur, Kadapa District and cognizance was taken under Section 406 IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995. (ii) The further contention of the petitioners is that though the property in Survey No. 565 to an extent of Ac. 0.73 cents and an extent of Ac. 0.10 cents in Survey No. 291, are notified in the Gazette belonging to Modampalli Mosque situated at Modampalli Village, Kadapa District, as per Task Force Report dated 04.12.2015 and 05.12.2015, the same was sold out by self styled Committee in the year 1995 and in turn it was sold away to different persons. (iii) On the complaint of the 2nd respondent herein i.e. Syed Rahamathulla S/o Musthan, Inspector Auditor, Waqf, to the Station House Officer, Proddutur P.S. the self styled Committee alleged to have not shown any records and accounts which is headed by the petitioners and as such it has been alleged that they are indulged financial irregularities, breach of trust and misappropriation of money by wrongful gain. (iv) On the basis of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/Syed Rahamathulla, a crime has been registered under Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995 vide Cr. No. 286 of 2015 on the file of Proddutur Rural Police Station and after investigation the investigating officer deleted the Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and filed charge sheet under Section 406 of IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995. No. 286 of 2015 on the file of Proddutur Rural Police Station and after investigation the investigating officer deleted the Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and filed charge sheet under Section 406 of IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995. (v) On which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered as C.C. No. 108 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Proddutur, Kadapa District. 4. Heard Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet is not maintainable either in law or on the facts and at the outset, the Inspector Auditor/2nd respondent/Syed Rahamathulla, is not a competent person to give the complaint and the self observation in the complaint is not tenable as the properties mentioned by him was sold in the year, 1995 itself and there is a delay of 20 years and without explaining the delay and name of the person who alleged to have sold the properties to the third parties also not disclosed in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the complaint itself is frivolous, illegal and not sustainable as per Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995. He further submits that even if the property is notified as Waqf property, it is only the Waqf Board, who is entitled to file a complaint under Section 52(A)(3) of the Waqf Act 1995 after passing resolution, but not the 2nd respondent herein. 7. He further submits that on perusal of the complaint, none of the ingredients under Section 406 of IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act 1995, are made out for maintaining the charges against them and complaint said to be filed by the 2nd respondent through the 1st respondent is nothing but short of colourable exercise of power by the prosecution. 8. 8. On the other hand, Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the complaint is maintainable and the learned Magistrate perused the material and found that there is a prima-facie case and took cognizance and issued summons to the accused and there is no error in filing the charge sheet by the police on the complaint of 2nd respondent herein and there is no material to quash the C.C. as claimed by the petitioners. 9. The 2nd respondent, who is complainant in the Callendar Case No. 108 of 2016 was also served with notice pursuant to the directions of this Court and proof of service also filed before this Court, vide USSR No. 51784 of 2018. But none represented for the 2nd respondent. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether taking of cognizance under Section 406 of IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act 1995, by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Poddutur, Kadapa District, is liable to be quashed in order to proceed further? 11. For reference and better appreciation of facts, Section 405 and 406 of IPC are extracted as follows: 405. 11. For reference and better appreciation of facts, Section 405 and 406 of IPC are extracted as follows: 405. Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust.” Explanation (1) - A person, being an employer [of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not] who deducts the employee’s contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. Explanation (2) - A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees’ contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees’ State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. Section 406: Punishment for criminal breach of trust - Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 12. As well Section 52A of Waqf Act, 1995 is as follows: 52A. Section 406: Punishment for criminal breach of trust - Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 12. As well Section 52A of Waqf Act, 1995 is as follows: 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. 13. Section 482 Cr.P.C. stated three conditions under which the inherent powers may be exercised by the High Court, namely: (i) in order to give effect to an order under the Code. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court. (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 14. Admittedly, inherent jurisdiction of High Court is not part of the ordinary litigation process and this Court is of conscious while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. It is not the function as a court of appeal or revision. This Court while exercising its inherent powers in order to appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence as it done if a case would reach the court by way of a statutory appeal. 15. In this connection, it is better to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported between State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. This Court while exercising its inherent powers in order to appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence as it done if a case would reach the court by way of a statutory appeal. 15. In this connection, it is better to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported between State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. The Apex Court has gathered broad guidelines for the exercise of inherent powers with a view to quash criminal proceedings under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226/227 of the Constitution from the different legal provisions and the pronouncements made by the courts in India. Identifying those guidelines by way of illustration while saying that an exhaustive list is not possible or desirable, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated as follows: (i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously 17 instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 16. On appreciation of ingredients under Section 406 of IPC, it should be established that there must be an entrustment and thereafter misappropriation or conversion. Then it will be amounts to criminal breach of trust. Moreover, when entrustment is mandatorily proved, prosecution need not prove misappropriation. 17. In the case on hand, a perusal of the record shows that entrustment of properties to the petitioners was not placed before the trial court. As could be seen from the complaint the accused are said to be self styled Committee and prosecution says there was mala-fide intention and ulterior motive without obtaining permission from Waqf Board or Authorities formed as self styled Committees and made transactions by selling out Waqf Board lands and also given lands to the third parties on lease. 18. On a close reading of the charge sheet as well as the documents placed on record does not show when and where Waqf Board has entrusted the properties to the petitioners herein and when, with an ulterior motive and fraudulent intention committed the act of breach of trust by the petitioners. When there is no prima-facie evidence at all to find the petitioners committed the act of breach of trust, in order to entrust, it is settled law need not prove misappropriation, but entrustment is mandatorily proved by the prosecution. But on perusal of the documents placed on record shows there is no entrustment of properties by the Waqf Board to the petitioners herein. Therefore, no case is made out under Section 406 of IPC. 19. Coming to Section 52(A) of Waqf Act 1995 is concerned, much discussion is not required to conclude that the course adopted by the 2nd respondent or the Magistrate is per se illegal. Therefore, no case is made out under Section 406 of IPC. 19. Coming to Section 52(A) of Waqf Act 1995 is concerned, much discussion is not required to conclude that the course adopted by the 2nd respondent or the Magistrate is per se illegal. When an offence under Section 52A of the Waqf Act, 1995 is alleged, as per Section 52A(3) of the Waqf Act, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Section except on a complaint made by the Board or any officer duly authorized by the State government in this behalf. 20. What is contemplated under the aforesaid provision is not a police report alleging an offence under Section 52A of the Waqf Act, 1995. A Court cannot take cognizance on a police report in the matter. The Court can take cognizance of such an offence on a complaint filed by the Waqf Board or any officer duly authorized by the State Government in that behalf only. 21. In the present case, neither the 2nd respondent nor any other person duly authorized by the State Government nor on behalf of the Waqf Board to give a complaint to the police and thereafter police filed charge sheet. Thereby, there is patent illegality or irregularity committed by the Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence both under Section 406 of IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion by taking the guidelines in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra and on verifying the material placed on record, this Court find that it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C. No. 108 of 2016 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddutur, Kadapa District for the offence under Section 406 of IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995. 23. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners 1 to 11 in C.C. No. 108 of 2016 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First, Proddutur, Kadapa District, for the offence under Section 406 IPC and Section 52(A) of Waqf Act, 1995, are hereby quashed. 24. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 25. Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, stand closed.