1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 310/ 2006 registered at Police Station Rajouri under Section 498-A/109, R.P.C. on the ground that on an earlier occasion also FIR No. 442/2005 registered under Section 498-A, R.P.C. had not been found by the police to have been substantiated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the failure of earlier FIR, registration of FIR No. 310/2000 and resultant production of final police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this regard was an abuse of the process of law and the proceedings in the challan were, therefore, required to be quashed. 3. It is settled law that inherent jurisdiction of the Court saved by Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure needs to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise was required to be exercised ex debitio justitiae to do real and substantial justice. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt was made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the High Court would step in to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In nut shell, exercise of inherent power would be justified to quash any proceeding if it was found that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court. 4. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, reported as AIR 1960 SC 366 : (1960 Cri LJ 1239), Honble Supreme Court of India had summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : 1) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of proceedings; 2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; 3) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 5. A caution too has been sounded that power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. 6. I have examined FIR No. 310/2006 and the final police report filed in the Court under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. 5. A caution too has been sounded that power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. 6. I have examined FIR No. 310/2006 and the final police report filed in the Court under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Perusal of the FIR as also the final police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates commission of offences under Section 498-A/109, R.P.C. FIR No. 310/2006, is based on fresh allegations of harassment made by Irshad Begum alleging that she had been beaten by the accused on 26th of July, 2007 and had been turned out of the matrimonial home along with her children with the threat that in case she would not bring the demanded dowry she would be done away with. 8. In view of the allegations appearing in the FIR and substantiated by the police on the basis of evidence petitioners case would not, in my opinion, fall within the parameters indicated in R.P. Kapoors case justifying exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. 9. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it just and proper to stifle the legitimate prosecution. 10. For all what has been said above, do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 11. Records of the trial Court shall be sent back forthwith. Petition dismissed.