The exercise of inherent powers of the High Court for quashing of FIR must be justified by specific tests and exercised sparingly. The complaint must prima facie constitute an offence for the court to take cognizance.

1. Petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of complaint under Section 494 RPC read with Section 109 RPC and Section 406 RPC and 120-B RPC pending trial before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Jammu and Order dated 05.01.2015 passed by the Court whereby cognizance of the offences aforementioned has been taken and process against the petitioners has been issued.

2. In the instant petition, it has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs at Pashan, Pune on 06.12.2002. After more than one year, a function was organized by the respondent and her family at Jammu only to introduce the respondent and her family with the petitioner No.1 stating that they want to complete some rituals as per their local culture. The event was attended by only the father of petitioner No.1 and none of his other family members. Even the marriage between them was registered at Pune under the Marriage Registration Act. They never resided in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. After living more than three years outside the State of J&K, due to indifferent, uncompromising and incompatible attitude and behaviour of the respondent, the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and respondent was on rocks with led to filing of a divorce petition before the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco Da Gama, Goa. The divorce petition was filed by petitioner No.1 on 17.10.2006 against the respondent. The said divorce petition filed by the petitioner No.1 was contested by the respondent and finally the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Vasco Da Gama allowed the said petition vide order dated 08.05.2009, whereby the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent was dissolved by decree of divorce. It is contended by the petitioners that the period of appeal against the order passed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is ninety day. No appeal against the said order was filed by the respondent within a period of ninety days or even thereafter. It is further contended that after the aforesaid order dated 08.05.2009 dissolving the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent attained finality, petitioner No.1 contracted his marriage with the petitioner No.2 on 09.12.2009 at Kolkata i.e. outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is also contended that it appears that the respondent filed first appeal against the order dated 08.05.2009 before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa on 11th November, 2009, i.e., much after the limitation period. In the said first appeal, notice was issued on 29th of December, 2009, which was received by the petitioner No.1 by the end of January, 2010 much after the solemnization of second marriage by the petitioner No1 with petitioner No.2.

3. It is contended that respondent in the year 2013 filed a transfer petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India seeking transfer of her first appeal from the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Goa to Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Kochi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 12.01.2015 allowed the said transfer petition.

4. Further, it is contended that the respondent in order to harass, victimize and blackmail the petitioners has filed a complaint before the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge) at Jammu for offence under Sections 494, 406, 109, 120-B RPC, wherein mainly the allegations are alleged against the petitioner No.1 but his entire family has been arraign as accused. It is contended that the court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Jammu without looking into the allegations as contained in the impugned complaint and without appreciating the fact that no offence as much less the offences as alleged in the complaint had ever taken place, has not only entertained the complaint filed by the respondent but has also taken cogniz