The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to prevent abuse of process of the court and secure the ends of justice, as well as the importance of considering each case on its own merits.

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

1. Petitioner seeks quashment of the case registered as FIR No. 387/2012 P/S Rajouri for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 RPC. On presentation of this petition in the year 2012, vide order dated 23rd August, 2012, investigation of the case qua the petitioner had been directed to remain stayed. Said direction continues to be in operation, as such, according to learned AAG, there is no progress in the investigation of the case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in fact, petitioner and respondent No. 2 are entangled into civil litigation. Three civil suits and two appeals are pending before different Courts. In order to wreak vengeance and to harass the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has succeeded in getting the case registered with the active support of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3, brother-in-law of respondent No. 2, at that time was posted as SDPO/Dy. SP in Thanamandi District Rajouri.

3. A bare perusal of the report as lodged by respondent No. 2 would suggest that the respondent No. 2 has questioned the position of petitioner being an adopted son of Kewal Krishan, in the process has tried to create a situation so as to give impression that the petitioner has concocted various documents.

4. Counsel for respondents highlighted that by filing the instant petition petitioner has succeeded in preventing the investigating agency from reaching to the depth of the matter.

5. Inherent jurisdiction as vest in the Court under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. was not appropriate to be resorted to. The position vis-a-vis exercise of such power has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. the power has to be exercised sparingly. Even if dispute primarily be of civil nature, same shall not constitute a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings because forgery and fraud would always be an element of civil nature. While seeking quashment, the documents relied on by the petitioner (accused) cannot be relied upon except in exceptional circumstances. In support of this submission, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Courte rendered in the case of Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 439.

6. Every case has its own facts and features and law has to be applied accordingly. For exercise of inherent jurisdiction no hard and fast rule has to be observed. In appropriate cases such jurisdiction has to be exercised so that the innocent are not subject to un-necessary prosecution and humiliation i.e. in case allegations contained in the first information report, on face value, if taken to be correct, would not make out cognizable offence or commission of any offence. In short, it is to be ascertained as to whether commission of offence on the basis of first information report is disclosed or not.

7. The laudable object of Section 561-A Cr. P. C is to prevent abuse of process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. From the above referred judgment Para 16 will be advantageous to be quoted:

“(16) Recently in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta this Court laid down the law in the following terms:

“15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to