Shri.Rizwanullah v. The State And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) CRR/68/2025 Shri. Rizwanullah ... Petitioner

Versus

The State and Others ... Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. N. A. Khan : Ms. Shaheen Razeen For the State : Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar Heard on : 17.12.2025 Judgment on : 18.12.2025 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1.

The revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings in FIR No. 0116 dated 09.08.2025, initiated against the petitioner and others under Section 3(5), 3(6), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Aberdeen along with an order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Andaman District, directing registration of the F.I.R. in this case on receiving a preliminary report.

2.

The petitioner's case is that :-

(i) On 30.04.2025 the respondent No. 2 to 4 filed an application under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure being C.R. Case No. 62 of 2025 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair, seeking direction upon the Station House Officer, Police Station Aberdeen to treat the said complaint as First Information Report against the Chief Executive Office, Waqf Board, the adhoc committee including the petitioner for an alleged offence of cheating, misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.

(ii) After the said complaint was made by the respondent No. 2 to 4 the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair vide Order dated 30.04.2025 directed the Station House Officer, Police Station, Aberdeen to file report inserting his submission with regard to the allegation made by the respondent No. 2 to 4 and submit a report by 05.06.2025.

(iii) On 11.07.2025 a Sub-Inspector namely P. R.

Pradeep of Police Station, Aberdeen conducted an inquiry and submitted a report before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Bair whereby informed that on the basis of Order dated 30.04.2025 an inquiry was conducted and a report was submitted whereby stated that he recorded the deposition of all the parties and also

filed the documents which were collected during the said inquiry and it was informed that the allegation levelled in the said complaint is false and baseless, along with the said application, the investigating officer also submitted an inquiry report.

(iv) That despite of such finding of the Inquiry Officer, the Ld. Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair vide Order 06.08.2025 on the basis of the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 to 4 held that the enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer is half hearted and a thorough investigation is needed in the case and therefore directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Aberdeen to register the complaint as FIR and to start investigation by deputing a competent officer not below the rank of Sub-inspector other than the present Inquiry Officer.

(v) As per the said Order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair South Andaman, an FIR No. 0116 dated 09.08.2025 was initiated against the petitioner and others under Section 3 (5), 3 (6), 316 (5) and 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Aberdeen. Hence, the criminal revision. 3.

On hearing learned Counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record and the impugned order

dated 06.08.2025, it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed as follows :

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

heard the EO on dock who submitted that during preliminary inquiry no incriminating 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 IQ 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 EQ 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.". 4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner on placing the copy of the First Information Report submits that there are nine accused persons in the present case, out of whom the accused being Mrs. Saira Bano @ S. Saira Bano and another accused being S. Shahul Hameed (President of the Adhoc Committee) have been discharged from this case on the proceedings being quashed in respect of the said accused persons in C.R.R. No. 49

of 2025 vide a judgment and order dated 10.11.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

5.

It is submitted by the petitioner that, there is no over tact on the part of the petitioner in respect of the offences alleged in the present case.

6.

Admittedly, writ petition no. 02 of 2024 was filed on 10.06.2024 against the accused persons. It has been alleged by the complainant that the Adhoc Committee constituted on 14.08.2023 illegally collected and misappropriated a certain sum of money being about Rs. 17,000/-.

7.

It is the further case of the petitioner that 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.

8.

On perusal of the inquiry report which was considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while directing registration of the F.I.R. in this case, it appears that the relevant findings on conclusion of the inquiry was as follows :

"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 us 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".

9.

In the said inquiry report the petitioner No. 2 in CRR 49 of 2025 being the President was held to have been a joint holder of the bank account along with the Secretary and Treasurer. Such accounts are normally held by the senior office bearers of a committee. As such, there does not appear to be any illegality in the same.

10.

On careful perusal of the inquiry report which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate terms as "half hearted", the same appears to be a comprehensive report which includes examination of witnesses, documents of the committee, etc. 11.

From the inquiry conducted by an authorized police officer, it further appears that the Chief Secretary has taken necessary action in the matter and the Adhoc Committee has also been replaced by a properly elected committee. It further appears that the petitioner in the present case namely Rizwanullah has not been named in the inquiry report. 12.

Considering the said facts on record this Court finds that prima facie the dispute between the parties herein is factional enmity and competition to acquire absolute power in the committee of the Mosque.

13.

The dispute in the case registered clearly lies in trying to take over the control of the management wherein prima facie

false allegations have been leveled against each other. Inspite of several civil proceedings having been initiated, the facts on record clearly show that there is a serious dispute between the parties in trying to take over the control of the administration along with its financial powers. It is thus a personal dispute between the parties and for their own vested interest, such cases are being registered to wreck personal vengeance. 14.

The facts and circumstances of this present case are covered by clause (1) and (7) of paragraph 102 of the State of Haryana and Others - versus - Bhajan Lall and Others reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, wherein the Supreme Court's guidelines are as follows :- "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.

(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 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.

(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 mala fide 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.

15.

Finally it appears that the order of the learned Magistrate appears to come within the provision of clause 2 of para 102 of the Bhajan Lall and Others (Supra).

"(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.

16.

Learned Magistrate in the present case has passed an order dated 06.08.2025 which is under challenge. In the said order, even though there was absolutely no incriminating materials found in the preliminary inquiry and no criminal offence was made out against the accused petitioner herein, the learned Magistrate with a proper reasoned order, proceeded to direct registration of FIR.

17.

Thus, it appears that the said order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair in C. R. Case

No. 62 of 2025 suffers from inherent illegality and if such an order is permitted to remain, it shall be a clear abuse of process of law/Court and as such, the principle of justice requires that the said order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Andaman District at Port Blair in C. R. Case No. 62 of 2025 along with the proceedings therein registered as an FIR being No. 0116 dated 09.08.2025 under Section 3(5), 3(6), 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Aberdeen be quashed and set aside in respect of petitioner namely Rizwanullah. 18.

C.R.R. No. 68 of 2025 is thus allowed.

19.

The revisional application stands disposed of along with all connected application, if any.

20.

The interim order, if any, stands vacated.

21.

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

[ SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. ]