The court emphasized the limited scope of its inherent jurisdiction and the importance of allowing the investigation to proceed to discover the truthfulness of allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Petitioners invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C seeking quashment of FIR No. 39/2013, dated 23.02.2013 registered at Police Station Akhnoor under Section 447/323/147/148/RPC read with Sections 3/25 & 4/25 Arms Act. In the petition, it is stated that on 07.07.2011 at about 9 a.m. accused persons i.e. the other party bearing enmity in mind and with criminal intention, attacked by forcibly intruding into the house of complainant/petitioner No. 9 and accused persons who committed battery and also indulged into acts of beating and outraging the modesty of Jamila Bibi. The police party rushed to the rescue of the petitioners and complainants to FIR and on the basis of complaint lodged by petitioner No. 9, FIR bearing No. 150/2011 under Sections 152, 323, 354, 147, 148 RPC was lodged in Police Station Akhnoor and after conducting investigation, total 13 persons were made accused and Challan was presented in the Court of Munsiff Akhnoor which is pending disposal after framing of charge and is at present at the stage of leading of evidence by prosecution. It is further contended that the impugned FIR was lodged against the petitioners on the basis of an application moved by the accused with respect to the same incident u/s. 156(3) and the factum of same incident, same time was also mentioned by the accused persons, and however, the place of incident was shown to be their ploughing fields. The persons who are serving and had gone to their respective offices were also implicated falsely and frivolously in the said application. The application was forwarded by the Court to the concerned Police Station with the direction to investigate the matter but the police knowing the veracity of the alleged incident and after conducting investigation did not find anything and as such did not proceed in the matter. Ultimately the accused got up from slumber and move application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu to conduct inquiry/investigation u/s. 202 after lapse of more than one and half years from the date of alleged incident. The said application was forwarded by the CJM Jammu to Munsiff Akhnoor and after receiving the report from police Station, directed the SHO P/S Akhnoor to lodge FIR and it was solely on the basis of the order passed by learned Munsiff Akhnoor that FIR impugned was lodged against the petitioners after a lapse much time from the date of alleged incidents. The complainant has alleged that Gun was brandished by the accused persons but the fact remains that the Gun had been already seized by the Police in a counter FIR lodged against the complainants herein.

2. The impugned FIR bearing No. 39/2012 and order dated 04.02.2013 passed by JMIC Munsiff Akhnoor is assailed on amongst grounds:

1. That the impugned FIR is bad in the eyes of law.

2. That proceedings under section 202 were initiated after availing the proceeding under section 156 (3). It will be pertinent to mention that an application under section 156 (3) was initiated against the petitioners on 18.07.2011 but no investigation carried out by the police agency or the petitioner herein were associated in the proceedings/investigation and the complainant had filed the application under section 156 (3) in order to create: counter case against the petitioners, in which the challan already stands submitted before learned Munsiff Akhnoor and the witnesses are being adduced in the said case. The complaint after a lapse of more than one year from the date of alleged incident and after presenting application under section 156 (3), approached the court of learned CJM Jammu, wherein concealing the factum of having moved an application under section 156 (3) on the same facts.

3. That the lodging of FIR, is an irregularity in the eyes of law as the complainant in the Impugned FIR could not have availed under section 202, after an application already moved under section 156 (3) in which police agency had a