1. Through the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No. 232 of 2006 registered at Police Station, Kishtwar under Section 366, RPC at the instance of father of petitioner No.2. 2. Pursuant to notice, Mr. B. S. Salathia, learned AAG has put in appearance. However, no reply/objections have been filed to the main petition by the respondent-State. Mr. Salathia states that he does not intend to file the reply. Therefore, the main petition is being disposed of finally. 3. At the very outset, it may be mentioned here that the quashing of the FIR is sought against petitioner No.1 only. 4. As per the averments, petitioner No.2 had married to petitioner No.1, against the wishes of her father. It is then averred that both the petitioners are major and contracted the marriage as per the Customs and Rites as both the petitioners are professing and belonging to Buddhist Region. Duly sworn affidavits of both the petitioners are also annexed in this regard. The petitioners are also relying upon a Marriage Agreement registered before Notary, at Jammu on 31-10-2006. 5. Petitioner No.2 then alleges that she had filed a complaint against her father before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. Her statement was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C in which she stated that her parents were inimical to her on account of her intimacy with petitioner No.1. They wanted to marry her to a person of their choice. She ultimately, to this disliking of her parents, married to petitioner No.1. 6. It is then alleged that both the petitioners are being harassed by the concerned Police. The father of petitioner No.1 was even constrained to knock at the door of Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kisthwar, for anticipatory bail. Both the petitioners are apprehending any untoward incident in the present set of circumstances. 7. Since no reply/counter has been filed by the respondent-State, there is no reason to dis-believe the averments made by the petitioners, which are otherwise, supported by an affidavit. 8. Petitioner No. 2 is also present in the Court and made a statement without oath admitting all the averments and the affidavit tendered by her in support thereto. 9. Mr. Sharma, while strengthening his case, relies upon a latest judgment of Honble Apex Court rendered in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P & Anr. 8. Petitioner No. 2 is also present in the Court and made a statement without oath admitting all the averments and the affidavit tendered by her in support thereto. 9. Mr. Sharma, while strengthening his case, relies upon a latest judgment of Honble Apex Court rendered in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) and another judgment of this Court rendered in Brij Mohan Rana and another versus State of Jammu and Kashmir (561-A Cr.P.C No.81/2003) decided on 18.8.2003. 10. Mr. Salathia, while refuting the case of the petitioners submits that even though the petitioners have claimed that they are living together as husband and wife as petitioner No.2 had married to petitioner No.1 of her own free will, yet the instant FIR registered against petitioner No.1, does not deserve to be quashed as the prosecution agency is still investigating the case and quashing of the proceedings would amount to throttling the investigation at its threshold. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions advanced by both the sides and perusing the entire records, I am of the view that ends of justice demand the quashing of the FIR by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 12. No doubt inherent powers of the Court are to be invoked in exceptional cases, but it is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code; to prevent the abuse of process of Court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 13. In State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa (AIR 2002 SC 671), their Lordships have observed as under:-- "Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possible arise. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possible arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of High Courts. All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle "quandelex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur in sine qua ipsa esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debite justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise were the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 14. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 14. Petitioner No.1 who had married to petitioner No.2 out of her free will is not to be treated as an ordinary criminal in the instant FIR which is registered at the instance of father of petitioner No.2, who no doubt, was against this marital cord as petitioner No.2 went against his wishes. May be, sentimentally, father of petitioner No.2 is justified as his daughter, who was brought up by him to this stage had played with the sentiments of her parents, but at the same time the said fact by itself would not restrain this Court in saving the newly wedded couple from any unnecessary agony and harassment. 15. In my considered view Lata Singh and Brij Mohan Ranas cases (supra) cited by Mr. Sharma, squarely cover the case of the petitioners and it does not call for further discussion. 16. As a sequel to what is said herein above and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, I am of the considered view that the continuation of the proceedings arising out of the present FIR would bring no positive out come. Therefore, the present case calls for invoking of inherent powers of this Court. 17. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed, case FIR No.232 of 2006 dated 01-11-2006 registered at Police Station, Kishtwar under Section 366, RPC and all the proceedings arising thereto qua petitioner No.1 are hereby quashed.