JUDGMENT : SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Shri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. Since pure legal issue is involved in this case therefore, without calling counter affidavit, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present Writ Petition is being decided finally at the stage of first hearing in view of the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules (Rules of Court, 1952). 3. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the First Information Report dated 29.08.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 0293 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station-Shahganj, District-Jaunpur and also for a direction to the official respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report. 4. The relevant facts of the case in brief as culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that the present petitioners and the opposite party no. 4 belongs to the same family. The ancestors of the petitioners and opposite party no. 4, namely, Late Sheikh Asgar son of Sheikh Ghooran resident of Erakiyana, created a Waqf in the year 1959, in respect of the property owned by him and remained ‘Mutawalli’ of the same till his death. Thereafter, as per the deed of Waqf, his son Mohd. Amin assumed the office of Mutawalli-ship. The said Waqf was duly registered by the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board, Lucknow as Waqf No. 49A-Jaunpur. After the death of the aforesaid Mohd. Amin, his son Mohd. Firoz Alam became the Mutawalli of the said Waqf on 01.01.2011. The U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board vide order dated 19.03.2019 removed the said Mohd. Firoz Alam from the office of Mutawalli-ship and in the vacancy thus caused, appointed Shri Abdul Mannan the petitioner No. 1 herein as the Mutawalli, to manage the affairs of the said Waqf. 5. The pleadings as available before us, shows that the petitioner No. 1 is holding the Tauliyat since 19.03.2019 i.e. the date of his appointment as Mutawalli. In the instant case, one Mohd. 5. The pleadings as available before us, shows that the petitioner No. 1 is holding the Tauliyat since 19.03.2019 i.e. the date of his appointment as Mutawalli. In the instant case, one Mohd. Rizwan, son of Late Nizamuddin who is the opposite party no. 4 herein, lodged a First Information Report (herein after referred as ‘F.I.R’.) dated 29.08.2024 against the petitioners, namely, Abdul Mannan, Mohd. Rehan, Mohd. Shakir and Abdul Hannan alleging therein that the petitioners are damaging the Waqf for their personal gain. It is also alleged that despite full knowledge of the fact that Late Sheikh Asgar devoted all of his property as Waqf on 14.03.1959, the petitioner No. 1 manipulated a ‘Hiba-nama’ dated 27.10.1969 in respect of a part of the aforesaid property and further got the same mutated in his name, in the Revenue Records. In the said F.I.R., it has been categorically alleged that on the strength of the aforesaid unlawful entries made in the Revenue Records on the basis of a fraudulent ‘Hiba-nama’, he illegally alienated the said Waqf property in favour of about 40 persons even without the approval of the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board. Further allegation as made in the said F.I.R. is that on 18.06.2024, at about 10:00 AM, petitioners tried to erect a boundary wall and a gate on the said Waqf property and on being opposed by the Informant/opposite party no. 4 along with his sons, the petitioners uttered filthy abuses while beating the informant with kicks/punches and stick and also threatened to kill, resulting into the lodging of the impugned F.I.R. 6. Assertion on behalf of the petitioners is that the allegation as levelled by the opposite party no. 4 in the impugned F.I.R. is totally bald and have no substance. The properties alleged to have been alienated are not the Waqf property and the same has been acquired by the above named petitioner from his grandfather through Hiba-nama dated 27.10.1969. The properties mentioned in the Waqf-deed dated 14.03.1959 are entirely different than the properties mentioned in the said Hiba-nama. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the present F.I.R. is nothing but a tactics to exert under pressure upon the petitioners to step back from pursuing the pending proceeding under Case Crime No. 376 of 2013. The properties mentioned in the Waqf-deed dated 14.03.1959 are entirely different than the properties mentioned in the said Hiba-nama. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the present F.I.R. is nothing but a tactics to exert under pressure upon the petitioners to step back from pursuing the pending proceeding under Case Crime No. 376 of 2013. The submission as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and can only be adjudicated before the competent forum. It is the settled law that the parties in the civil dispute could not be permitted to use criminal proceedings as hand-twisting device. Further, no mention of any injury caused to anyone in the alleged incident, itself exposes the falsehood of the concocted story as alleged to have taken place on 18.06.2024 as narrated in the impugned F.I.R. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the informant/opposite party no. 4 has no locus-standi to lodge the F.I.R. in view of the specific bar as provided under Section 52A (3) of the Waqf Act, 1995 that specifically provides that in case of any alienation of the Waqf property without sanction of the Board, no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the said section except on a complaint made by the Board or any officer duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf and, therefore, the lodging of F.I.R. by the opposite party no. 4 alleging alienation of the Waqf property without the sanction of the Board, is de-hors of the Waqf Act, 1995. 8. Before delving into the question as to whether the opposite party no. 4 is competent under law to lodge an F.I.R. seeking prosecution against the petitioners regarding the alleged alienation of the Waqf property; it would be apposite to go through the provisions as stipulated under the Waqf Act, 1995 dealing with the alienation of the Waqf property. For ready reference, the provisions of Sections 51, 52 and 52A are reproduced hereinafter: 51. For ready reference, the provisions of Sections 51, 52 and 52A are reproduced hereinafter: 51. Alienation of waqf property without sanction of Board to be void: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the waqf deed, any lease of any immovable property which is waqf property, shall be void unless such lease is effected with the prior sanction of the Board: Provided that no mosque, dargah, khanqah, graveyard, or imambara shall be leased except any unused graveyards in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh where such graveyard has been leased out before the date of commencement of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 (27 of 2013). (1A) Any sale, gift, exchange, mortgage or transfer of waqf property shall be void ab initio: Provided that in case the Board is satisfied that any waqf property may be developed for the purposes of the Act, it may, after recording reasons in writing, take up the development of such property through such agency and in such manner as the Board may determine and move a resolution containing recommendation of development of such waqf property, which shall be passed by a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the Board: Provided further that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect any acquisition of waqf properties for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) or any other law relating to acquisition of land if such acquisition is made in consultation with the Board: Provided also that: (a) the acquisition shall not be in contravention of the Places of Public Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (42 of 1991). (b) the purpose for which the land is being acquired shall be undisputedly for a public purpose. (c) no alternative land is available which shall be considered as more or less suitable for that purpose. (d) to safeguard adequately the interest and objective of the waqf, the compensation shall be at the prevailing market value or a suitable land with reasonable solatium in lieu of the acquired property. 52. (c) no alternative land is available which shall be considered as more or less suitable for that purpose. (d) to safeguard adequately the interest and objective of the waqf, the compensation shall be at the prevailing market value or a suitable land with reasonable solatium in lieu of the acquired property. 52. Recovery of waqf property transferred in contravention of section 51: (1) If the Board is satisfied, after making any inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, that any immovable property of a waqf entered as such in the register of waqf maintained under section 36, has been transferred without the previous sanction of the Board in contravention of the provisions of section 51 or section 56, it may send a requisition to the Collector within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to obtain and deliver possession of the property to it. (2) On receipt of a requisition under sub-section (1), the Collector shall pass an order directing the person in possession of the property to deliver the property to the Board within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order. (3) Every order passed under sub-section (2) shall be served: (a) by giving or tendering the order, or by sending it by post to the person for whom it is intended. (b) if such person cannot be found, by affixing the order on some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business, or by giving or tendering the order to some adult male member or servant of his family or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the property to which it relates: Provided that where the person on whom the order is to be served, is a minor, service upon his guardian or upon any adult male member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be the service upon the minor. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector under sub-section (2) may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the property is situate and the decision of the Tribunal on such appeal shall be final. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector under sub-section (2) may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of the order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the property is situate and the decision of the Tribunal on such appeal shall be final. (5) Where an order passed under sub-section (2) has not been complied with and the time for appealing against such order has expired without an appeal having been preferred or the appeal, if any, preferred within that time has been dismissed, the Collector shall obtain possession of the property in respect of which the order has been made, using such force, if any, as may be necessary for the purpose and deliver it to the Board. (6) In exercising his functions under this section the Collector shall be guided by such rules as may be provided by regulations. 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.” (Emphasis supplied by this Court) 9. From a bare perusal of Sub-Section (3) of Section 52A of Waqf Act, 1995 it is crystal clear that the same categorically bars the Court to take cognizance of any offence under the said Section except on a Complaint made by Board or any officer duly authorized by the State Government in this behalf. 10. Further, in the instant case, by means of the impugned F.I.R. the informant/opposite party no. 10. Further, in the instant case, by means of the impugned F.I.R. the informant/opposite party no. 4 has alleged alienation of the Waqf property by the mutawalli of the Waqf. At this stage it would not be out of place to note that legislature has described the mutawalli of waqf as ‘public servant’ under sub-section (2) of section 101 of the Waqf Act, 1995, which reads as under: “(2) Every mutawalli of a [waqf], every member of managing committee, whether constituted by the Board or under any deed of [waqf], every Executive Officer and every person holding any office in a [waqf] shall also be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 11. It would not be out of place to mention that the Waqf Board under Section 64(1)(k) of the Waqf Act, 1995 itself has been bestowed with the power to take action against the mutawalli, on being found that he misappropriates or fraudulently deals with the property of the Waqf. 12. From the impugned F.I.R. it is apparent that substratum of the dispute is the very character of the property alleged to have been alienated by the petitioners in as much as, whether the same belongs to the Waqf or not? In case of being Waqf property, whether the previous sanction as stipulated under Section 51 of the Waqf Act,1995 was obtained or not? Whether the Hiba-nama dated 27.10.1969 is a genuine and valid document? Further, whether the petitioner no. 1 was rightly appointed as the mutawalli of the Waqf in question by the U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board vide order dated 19.03.2019 by removing the earlier mutawalli? 13. Undoubtedly, the disputes as referred in the preceding paragraph are amenable to Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Sub-Section (2) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 categorically provides that any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Waqf shall be determined by the Waqf Tribunal duly constituted under the Waqf Act, 1995. 13. Undoubtedly, the disputes as referred in the preceding paragraph are amenable to Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Sub-Section (2) of Section 83 of the Waqf Act, 1995 categorically provides that any dispute, question or other matter relating to the Waqf shall be determined by the Waqf Tribunal duly constituted under the Waqf Act, 1995. Section 83 (2) of The Wakf Act, 1995 reads as under: “(2) Any mutawalli person interested in a waqf or any other person aggrieved by an order made under this Act, or rules made thereunder, may make an application within the time specified in this Act or where no such time has been specified, within such time as may be prescribed, to the Tribunal for the determination of any dispute, question or other matter relating to the waqf.” 14. In view of what has been narrated and discussed hereinabove, we hold the opinion that by means of the impugned F.I.R. the opposite party no. 4 has tried to transform the civil dispute into a criminal one. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has very critically addressed the said issue in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Limited, 2006 (6) SCC 736 , wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has taken serious notice of the growing trend of mischaracterising civil dispute into criminal. Further, putting a note of caution in case of Professor R.K. Vijayasarathy and another vs. Sudha Seetharam and another, 2019 (16) SCC 739 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to observe that cloaking a civil dispute as criminal matter in the absence of requisite ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence is abuse of Court’s process. In the present case the foundation of the impugned F.I.R. is the allegation of alienation of the property in question by the petitioner No. 1. The crux of dispute involved in the matter lies in determination of the fact that as to whether the property in question allegedly alienated is indeed a Waqf. The said dispute is effectively adjudicable only by the competent forum duly constituted under section 83(1) of the Waqf Act, 1995. 15. It is well settled that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not confined to the procedural stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the surrounding circumstances leading to the initiation of the proceeding. 15. It is well settled that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not confined to the procedural stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the surrounding circumstances leading to the initiation of the proceeding. Undoubtedly, quashing of F.I.R or proceeding is warranted where it manifests that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceeding. In the instant case, the allegation of alienation of the property in question by the petitioner in contravention of the provisions under Section 51 of the Waqf Act, 1995, is the genesis of the dispute which cannot be prosecuted as a State Case based upon F.I.R. in the teeth of Section 52A(3) of the Waqf Act, 1995, which categorically provides that 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. 16. In the light of the deliberations made herein above the impugned F.I.R. dated 29.08.2024 lodged by the opposite party no. 4 in respect of the alleged alienation of the Waqf property without the sanction of the Waqf Board, is unsustainable in law, being in contravention to the legal bar as stipulated under sub-section (3) of section 52A of the Waqf Act, 1995. 17. Accordingly, considering the statutory restriction being imposed under sub-Section (3) of Section 52A of the Waqf Act, 1995, the impugned F.I.R. dated 29.08.2024 registered at Case Crime No. 0293 of 2024; Police Station-Shahganj, District-Jaunpur; to the extent it relates to Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed to that extent. So far as the rest of the alleged offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned in the F.I.R. dated 29.08.2024 are concerned, it is pertinent to note that since these offences are non-cognizable, therefore, prosecution is at liberty to proceed with the investigation only after seeking required permission in terms of the provisions of Section 155(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. However it is made clear that this order shall not prevent the concerned Waqf Board or any officer duly authorized by the State Government to institute Complaint in terms of Section 52A of The Waqf Act, 1995. 19. 18. However it is made clear that this order shall not prevent the concerned Waqf Board or any officer duly authorized by the State Government to institute Complaint in terms of Section 52A of The Waqf Act, 1995. 19. As a fall out and consequence of the above deliberation, this Writ Petition is allowed with the observations and directions set forth herein above. 20. Parties to this writ petition shall bear their respective costs.