Mrs.Saira Bano @ S.Saira Bano And ANR v. The State (Ut Of Andaman And Nicobar) And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY CRR No. 49 of 2025 Mrs. Saira Bano @ S.Saira Bano and another ... Petitioners

Versus

The State (UT of Andaman and Nicobar) and others ... Respondents For the petitioners : Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S. Ajith Prasad For the State : Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar For the respondent No. 2-4 : Mr. Arul Prasanth Heard on : 29.10.2025, 03.11.2025 & 04.11.2025 Judgment on : November 10, 2025 ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.

1.

The complainants being respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 described themselves as Tamil speaking Muslim community hailing from Tamil Nadu, residing permanently in the Islands professing attachment to the mosque known Masjid-un-Noor asserting the same to have been registered under Waqf Board Andaman and Nicobar Islands Port Blair on 04.07.2016 vide Ref. No. 8-76/ANI/WB/1W/2014 and the Bye-Laws was approved

vide Registration No. 43 of 2014. The complainants succinctly stated the mosque had since its inception been identified in all legal administrative and religious records as Masjid-un-Noor and the sanctity of the name formed and essential part of the religious recognition of the community. On 07.07.2023 Shri. U Nasar Khan submitted an application for conducting election as well as auditing of the accounts of Masjid-un-Noor. On 14.08.2023 the Chief Executive Officer constituted an ad hoc committee in the name of Masjid-e-Noor instead of Masjid-unNoor. 2.

It had been alleged certain individual including Shri. U Nasar Khan and 9 others had earlier raised grievances before the authorities on 19.10.2023 concerning unlawful alteration of the mosque name. Representations were submitted stating the mosque to be described by the unapproved nomenclature Masjid-e-Noor in derogation of the established and sanctioned name Masjid-un-Noor. The complainants asserted such change of name was beyond authority, contrary to the approved bylaws and in violation of Waqf Board's direction. The registered name of Masjid-un-Noor had been continuously reflected in marriage documentation being the marriage certificate issued by the mosque in the registered name of Masjid-un-Noor exclusively.

3.

On 10.06.2024 a civil suit being WP No. 02 of 2024 was filed seeking a permanent injunction restraining the accused persons from using the unregistered name of Masjid-e-Noor. An account in the name of Masjid-un-Noor was functional in the Union Bank of India operative since 26.06.2013. It had been further alleged during the tenure of the ad hoc committee, its president accused S. Shahul Hameed being petitioner No.2 herein along with his associate wife being petitioner No.1 herein opened a separate bank account bearing the name Masjid-eNoor distinct from the long standing bank account maintained in Union Bank of India under the name of Masjid-un-Noor on 31.08.2025 vide account No. 002034021105339.

According to the complainants such parallel operation of accounts created an unauthorized opaque channel outside the scope of recognized oversight. It had been stated from September 2023 onwards monetary contributions and religious offerings were collected from the Tamil speaking Muslim Community using receipt books bearing the unapproved title Masjid-e-Noor. Entries in the complaint including receipt numbers and dates had been provided to illustrate collections cumulatively amounting to Rs. 9,43,321/- which the complainants alleged was not deposited into the official account of the mosque nor accounted for, before the congregation.

4.

It was further urged, the aforesaid amount was illegally collected to cheat the Tamil speaking Muslim Community and subsequent misappropriation of the same, which was accomplished through common intention and criminal conspiracy to commit the offence.

5.

According to the complainants the Ad-Hoc committee constituted on 14.08.2023 illegally collected the following amount to have been misappropriated as tabulated here under along with the illegal receipts:

Sl.

No.

Receipt No.

Date Amount 01.09.2023 100.00 01.09.2023 100.00 01.10.2023 15000.00 02.09.2023 100.00 02.09.2023 100.00 13.10.2023 200.00 04.10.2023 100.00 08.03.2024 500.00 04.10.2023 100.00 13.10.2023 100.00 12.04.2024 300.00

6.

The complaint recorded on 08.01.2025, the complainants submitted a written complaint to the Station House Officer, Aberdeen Police Station narrating the alleged misappropriation. The complainants were called to the police station on 21.04.2025 and were informed of a preliminary inquiry being conducted, however, no FIR was registered. Aggrieved thereof the complainants addressed written representations to the Director General of Police and to District Superintendent of Police, South Andaman District, but in vain. The complainants were therefore constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court under Section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking direction to the Station House Officer and to registered and investigate the case for offences of misappropriation and breach of trust in terms of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023.

7.

Based on the complaint as aforesaid dated 30.04.2025 Aberdeen Police Station Case No. 116 of 2025 dated 09.08.2025 under Sections 3(5)/3(6)/316 (5)/318(4) of the Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita was registered which gave rise to CR Case No. 62 of 2025 being dealt by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair.

8.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair vide order No. 05 dated 06.08.2025 observed as follows: "Today is fixed for hearing in presence of the E.O., The record is taken up for accordingly.

The E.O and the Ld. Advocate are present.

heardthe EO on dock who submitted that during preliminary inquiry no incrimination materials has been found against the accused persons and the allegation of criminal misappropriation of property would not be made out.

On the contrary, the LD. Advocate for the complainant vehemently objected the report of the IO and specifically pointed out towards some of the documents annexed with his application. On being asked the EO could not adduce satisfactory answer as to whether during the inquiry he had verified those documents or not. In that event, I think that the inquiry conducted by the EO is half hearted and thorough investigation is needed in this case. Considering the above, the SHO, PS Aberdeen is hereby directed to register the complaint as FIR and to start investigation by deputing a competent officer not below the rank of SI of police other than the present EO.

Fixing 03.11.2025 for report in final form.

Let copy ofthis order alongwith complaint along with annexure be forwarded to the SHO, PS Aberdeen at once." 9.

The learned advocate representing the petitioners submitted to have filed the instant revisional application being aggrieved by the aforesaid order discarding the report of preliminary inquiry whereby the Enquiry Officer expressed absence of incriminating materials to implicate the petitioners. According to Mr. Deep ChaimKabir learned senior advocate the dispute between the parties arose out of competing claims to the administration and financial management of the mosque known as Masjid-un-Noor whereby the respondent 2, 3 and 4 being the members of Tamil Nadu Islamiya Malarchi Mamdran (TIMM) wanted to reign supremacy and assert control over the management committee leading to diverse civil proceeding,

administrative directions and criminal allegations. For Ramzan 2023, the Waqf Board constituted an ad hoc committee with a limited mandate to manage daily affairs during the festival period. Upon completion of its tenure, the committee properly handed over all financial and administrative records which were acknowledged by the Waqf Board and the accounts were placed under audit by a Chartered Accountant. Subsequently a dispute emerged due to the parallel use of the names Masjid-un-Noor and Masjid-e-Noor confronting the existence of two bank accounts. It was further submitted in WT No. 02 of 2024 the Civil Judge directed only the official name Masjid-un-Noor be used and the additional account be closed to prevent duel control. The Chief Secretary independently reviewed the records and endorsed the closure of the second account.

These directions were accepted to maintain clarity and administrative propriety. Nowhere in the bank account functional at Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank the name of petitioner no. 1 was recorded. For Ramzan 2025, a fresh ad hoc committee was constituted from name suggested by the complainants' faction. The said committee's authority was temporary and expressly limited to the festival period which automatically expired upon conclusion of Eid on 27.02.2025.

The complainants group, however, sought to continue its control over the administration beyond its term and accordingly

initiated allegations of financial impropriety against the previous committee on frivolous, baseless, false context and allegations. A police inquiry was conducted pursuant to direction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The bank records reflected the following:

Particulars Amount Total receipts 9,44,104.00 Total Expenditure 8,90,887.75 Closing balance 53,216.25 10.

The learned advocate representing the petitioner further stated the audit report mentioned the audited accounts for the period mentioned therein as had been computed under the direction of the ad hoc committee constituted temporarily prior to such date the entire management of the administrative function was entrusted to the community of the complainants. The expenditure included the legitimate expenditure and bank charges along with interest accrued. The alleged duplicate receipts were explained as entries from two sequential receipt books. One issued for procuring life time membership and the other only for accepting donations from members and/or commoners who visited the mosque. Accordingly no offence of misappropriation was made out. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was dissatisfied on the failure of the Enquiry Officer

with regard to certain queries relating to the documents annexed with the application. The Enquiry Officer had submitted the report prior to the audit report being filed and was not in a position to explain the query of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and directed initiation of investigation. It was further submitted the criminal process to have been invoked not as a remedy for crime but as a continuation of factional rivalry over the dominion of administrative control of the mosque. Pursuant to a court's direction a special officer carried out membership verification and conducted the elections under the mosque byelaws. A lawfully elected managing committee in seisin is in the process of settling the issue of governance.

The pendency of criminal cases serves no legitimate purpose and cannot be permitted to be prolonged as a tool of domination or to exercise private vendetta. Moreover the financial records will not reconcile any element of dishonest intention to constitute the alleged offences with the involvement of the present petitioners and accordingly prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceedings instituted against the present petitioners.

11.

The learned advocate representing the State submitted presence of grave financial irregularities which required the process of trial to be completed to unravel the same and

accordingly the criminal proceedings should not be quashed at a nascent stage.

12.

The learned advocate representing the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 denied mere factional dispute between the parties as had been suggested on behalf of the petitioners. The learned advocate Mr.

Arul Advocate referred to the historical advent of Tamil Nadu Islamiya Malarchi Mamdran (TIMM) and its commendable functioning over the years contrary to the activities of the ad hoc committee to have deliberately utilized the name of the mosque as Masjid-e-Noor instead of Masjid-unNoor to deceive the purpose and objective of the mosque for wrongful gain collecting funds from the visitors at the mosque through generation of separate receipts, one in English language and the other in Tamil language, to defraud the religious institution with suppression of facts and defalcation of funds through opening of a separate account instead of closing the earlier account already prevalent in the name of the mosque.

It was further submitted the accounts maintain during the Ramzan 2023 period were neither transparent nor properly disclosed at the relevant time. The subsequent handing over occasioned selective delay and was incomplete. The respondents had misappropriated crores of rupees over the years without furnishing accurate accounts.

manufactured as the same was not certified through the direction of the Court and accordingly not reliable. The police inquiry was merely an informal fact gathering exercise and not an investigation. At the pre investigation stage the Court shall not evaluate the correctness of accounts but only consider whether allegations disclose a cognizable offence.

The respondents' case rests on the following circumstances: a) Two sets of receipts books were used simultaneously collection of money.

b) The pass books entries do not correspond fully with the cash collection claims.

c) A second bank account existed in a different name for the same mosque d) The explanation for handling of receipts was neither contemporaneous nor consistent.

13.

The learned advocate Mr. Arul Prasanth strenuously argued the aforesaid circumstances to raise serious suspicion of diversion of funds and misappropriation which further strengthened by fact required investigation and not quashing. At this stage the Court is not required to determine guilt but only to uphold the right to full investigation. 14.

The present proceeding emanated from a continuing discord between two rival groups of worshippers over the

administration, financial management and nomenclature of the mosque official known as Masjid-un-Noor. The said conflict has traversed several civil, administrative and criminal fora disputing the management of the mosque and its financial affairs initiated at the behest of the complainants group. The Waqf Board had earlier constituted an ad hoc committee for Ramzan 2023 with the limited mandate of managing day to day affairs during festival period. Upon completion of its tenure the said committee duly handed over the entire records of accounts. The bank account was subsequently placed under audit by a Chartered Accountant and the records were acknowledged by the Board.

15.

A dispute thereafter arose regarding use of two names Masjid-un-Noor and Masjid-e-Noor and simultaneous operation of two bank accounts. The Civil Judge in WT No. 02 of 2024 directed that only one authorized name Masjid-un-Noor should be used and the additional bank account opened in the alternate name should be closed in order to prevent suspicion or dual financial control. The Chief Secretary endorsed these directions and instructed the CEO, Waqf Board to ensure the accounts closure.

16.

During Ramzan 2025 afresh ad hoc committee was constituted by the CEO of the Waqf Board from a list proposed by one faction which in effect handed over full administrative control to the complainants' group.

17.

The complainants'

group initiated allegations of misappropriation of loss of funds to the tune of Rs. 9,43,321/-. Police inquiry was ordered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The police upon examination of bank records, receipts and statement of ex-president, ex-secretary and extreasurer of the 2023 committee, found no discrepancy. The audited bank account reflected receipts of Rs. 9,44,104/-; expenditure of Rs. 8,90,887.75 towards legitimate purposes including bank charges and interest. The remaining balance of Rs. 53,216.25 was indicated. The alleged duplicate receipts were explained as originating from two separately issued books, with no defalcation been detected. The records tallied. No shortage or diversion was found. The allegation of misappropriation of Rs.9,43,321/- had not been supported by materials on record. 18.

The complainants initially approached the Station House Officer Aberdeen whereupon an inquiry was conducted. Statements were recorded and bank documents including account ledger, passbook and receipt books were obtained and examined. The inquiry report was submitted before the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate in CR No. 62 of 2025 which reflected the aforesaid computations whereby no deficit, misappropriation or unlawful siphoning of funds could be established. Despite such findings the complainants continued to pursue statutory recourse by lodging representations before the Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police asserting the earlier inquiry to have been ineffective. According to the complainants no consequential steps were taken. The present application was thus filed under Section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 finding no alternative efficacious remedy. The learned Trial Court directed the written complaint as aforesaid to be treated as First Information Report and initiate criminal proceeding for alleged misappropriation of funds and unauthorized use of the name of the mosque under the Bharataya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 as aforesaid. 19.

Meanwhile, pursuant to judicial direction a Special officer was appointed to oversee the membership operation and conduct elections for the regular managing committee. The election process had since be completed, electoral materials and accounts deposited before the Civil Court and a lawfully constituted committee presently administered the mosque. 20.

The pivotal allegation related to a bank account to have been prevailing under the nomenclature Masjid-e-Noor distinct from the registered and approved name Masjid-un-Noor and

donations amounting to Rs. 9,43,321/- to have been collected thereunder. The complainants asserted such collection to be unauthorised which constituted cheating, breach of trust and conspiracy. The record placed by the investigating agency however disclosed a detailed inquiry was infact undertaken whereby entire set of bank statements, passbooks, receipt books and deposit entries were collected and examined. The preliminary inquiry report indicated the amount collected to be Rs.9,44,104/- of which Rs.8,90,887.75 had been duly utilized towards expenses relatable to the operative activities of the mosque and a balance of Rs.53,216.25 remained intact.No deficit, diversion or wrongful gain was detected. The subsequent bank account did not mention the name of the petitioner No.

1 to be one of the account holder nor any sum of money was siphoned of the said bank account to personal account of the either of the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 apart from being the wife of petitioner No.2 had not been quoted to have played any role with the functioning of the ad hoc committee. The complaint as aforesaid did not mention any specific role attributable to either of the petitioners herein despite conjectures and figmentary assumptions. Alleged duplicity in receipt numbers was accounted through existence of two parallel receipt books which detailed separate dates and serial numbers signifying different avenues of donations.

21.

The dispute regarding the correct nomenclature of the mosque and its administration has already been the subject of adjudication before the competent Civil Court in WT No. 02 of 2024 wherein the status and identity of the mosque under its registered name Masjid-un-Noor has been conclusively determined and recognized. A Special Officer has since conducted a membership verification and regular election have been conducted resulted in the constitution of the duly elected managing committee presently administering the mosque in accordance with the bye-laws.

22.

The allegation raised by the complainants, therefore, pertain to a period governed by an ad hoc committee whose tenure has since lapsed, whose accounts have been submitted and audited. The said ad hoc committee had been superseded by a democratically constituted committee pursuant to judicial supervision.

23.

The Enquiry Report filed by the Enquiry officer is as follows:

Enquiry report "Ref: Hon'ble Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaya Puram, CR Case No. 62 of 2025 (U. Nasar Khan & 02 Ors. Vs. Shri. Rizwanullah & 08 Ors.) Complainants:

1. Shri U. Nasar Khan, S/o Late Umar Khan, R/o Phongy Chatung, Ph 8220108595

2. Shri N. Jahir Hussain, 5/0 Shri Nazeer Ahmed, R/o Aberdeen Bazar, Phi 9647266647

3. Shri M. Thajudeen, 8/o Shri Mohammed Ali, R/o Aberdeen Bazar, Ph 9933294442

Alleged Persons:

1. Shri Rizwanullah, S/o Late Jalaluddin Aktar, R/e Dollygunj, Mob No 9933289780

2. Shri S. Shahul Hameed, S/o Late M.A. Sayed Mohammed, R/o Haddo, Mob No: 9434281088, 8926056666

3. Smti. Saira Banu, W/o Shri S. Shahul Hameed, R/o Haddo

4. Shri S. Mohammed Brostheen, R/o Babuline, Mob No: 9434260875

5. Shri Tarik Hameed, R/o Middle Point, Mob No: 70639911342

6. Shri Areez Azeem, R/o South Point, Mob No: 9434280427

7. Shri S.M. Shaik Asif Ali, R/o Babu Line, Mob No: 9933284133

8. Shri Haji Abdul Latif, R/o Bambooflat, Mob No: 9933298049

9. Shri K. Abdul Aleem, S/o Late M. Kader Hussain, R/o Phongy Chaung, Mob No: 9933258889

1. Brief of the Complaint:

Sir, Shri U. Nasar Khan and others, submitted the complaint letter raising the following concerns:

 Mismanagement of Funds: The complainants alleged that funds collected for the mosque's operations and maintenance were being mismanaged and mishandled.  Unauthorized Bank Account: It was claimed that a new bank account was opened for the mosque without the necessary authorization from the relevant authorities, which might indicate potential misappropriation of funds.

2. Key Allegations by Complainants:

 Formation of an Ad-Hoc Committee: The complainants raised concerns that the Ad-Hoc Committee was improperly formed and lacked transparency.

 Bank Account Issue: A new bank account was opened in the name of "Masjid-e-Noor without proper authorization, allegedly leading to the misappropriation of funds.  Misappropriation of Funds:

It was alleged that Rs.9,43,321/- was collected for the mosque, but these funds were allegedly misused under the guise of donations.

3. Enquiry Conducted:

Statements from Key Individuals:

 Shri S. Shahul Hameed (President), Shri Abdul Latif (Secretary), and Shri S.M. Shaik Asif Ali (Treasurer): o The Ad-Hoc Committee was legally constituted, following instructions from the Waqf Board.

o The opening of a new bank account on 30.08.2023 was done with the Waqf Board's approval to ensure transparency.

o The account was jointly held by Shri Shahul Hameed (President), Shri Abdul Latif (Secretary), and Shri S.M. Shaik Asif Ali (Treasurer).

o All financial transactions were recorded and followed the established financial procedures.

o They denied any wrongdoing or misappropriation of funds.

o Clarification on Receipt Issue: Regarding the allegations of issuing double receipts with the same number, it was clarified that the receipts were from two separate books, each used for different tasks. As such, the allegation of duplicate receipts was ruled out.

Waqf Board's Response (21.04.2025)  The Waqf Board confirmed that the Ad-Hoc Committee was constituted due to allegations of mismanagement by the previous committee.

 The new bank account was opened with the Waqf Board's approval, ensuring proper handling and transparency of funds.

 The Waqf Board ordered the closure of the account in compliance with the Chief Secretary's Order No. 411 dated 17.02.2025.

 The account was closed as per the Waqf Board's directive, and an audit of the transactions is currently underway. Bank's Reply (10/07/25)  The bank confirmed that the new account was jointly held by Shri Shahul Hameed (President), Shri Abdul Latif (Secretary), and Shri S.M. Shaik Asif Ali (Treasurer).  KYC and account opening documentation were in place, supporting the claim of these individuals being the account holders.

4. Action Taken:

 Closure of Bank Account: Following the Waqf Board's directive, the bank account in question has been closed. An audit of the transactions in the account is currently in progress.

 Audit Requirement: The Waqf Board instructed that the audit report be submitted to the Deputy Commissioner (South Andaman) within the stipulated time frame.  Compliance with Court Orders: All actions regarding the matter are being carried out in compliance with the court's

order in WPA No. 688/2024 (Calcutta High Court) and the subsequent Chief Secretary's directive concerning the issue.

5. Conclusion:

 The issue regarding the unauthorized bank account has been resolved following the closure of the account as per the Chief Secretary's order.

 The dispute over the name of the mosque, Masjid Noor vs Masjid-e-Noor, has already been addressed by the Chief Secretary, and no further action is required regarding the name. (Copy enclosed)  It has been confirmed that the bank account was jointly held by Shri Shahul Hameed (President), Shri Abdul Latif (Secretary), and Shri S.M. Shaik Asif Ali (Treasurer).  Smit. Saira Bano, despite being implicated in the initial complaints, was never part of the management team or involved in the bank account. This confirms her claim that she was wrongfully dragged into the matter for harassment purposes. She had no direct involvement with the finances or the opening of the disputed bank account, which supports her defence.

 The allegations of issuing double receipts with the same number were also ruled out after it was clarified that the receipts came from two different books used for entirely different purposes. On physical verification of these receipts as alleged in the complaint, i.e. Receipt no 04,24,194 and 226 have been checked and found that one of them belongs to membership subscription of the Masjid and the other meant for contribution toward Masjid expenses. Therefore, it is requested to kindly file this complaint since none of the allegation has been substantiated against the alleged persons.

Submitted please S.I. P.R. Pradeep, Enquiry Officer, PS Aberdeen"

24.

Apart from the present complaints none of the independent visitors/worshippers who attended the mosque complained of extraction of membership fees from them fraudulently for personal gain by either of the petitioners. 25.

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lall and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SSC 335. The following ratio is laid down:

"102.

In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions for the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) 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.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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.

(3) 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.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a not-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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

26.

A conjoint reading of the complaint, FIR and the preliminary Enquiry report do not portray the alleged commission of any cognizable offence. The complainant respondents have already instituted civil case with regard to anomaly indicated in the statement of accounts as per the version of learned advocate representing the respondents to the tune of crores of rupees which, however, had not transpired through the documents on record.

27.

Criminal law cannot be recoursed to in the disguise of wreaking personal vengeance in absence of mens rea. In the instant case neither the complaint nor the documents on record indicate the criminality of the petitioners to be indicted in the offence alleged to have been committed by the same. No prima facie criminal offence has been disclosed involving the participation of the present petitioners with criminal intent warranting registration of a fresh FIR. To allow to continue with the criminal proceedings as far as the present petitioners are concerned will indubitably result in abuse of the process of law and accordingly the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 is set aside as far as the present petitioners are concerned. The Trial Court shall not proceed with the criminal case instituted against the present petitioner in CR Case No. 62 of 2025. 28.

CRR/49/2025 is accordingly disposed of.

29.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

(ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.)