1. Matrimonial discord has led to the filing of the present proceedings against the petitioner. Commonly used provisions of Section 498-A, IPC by the wife levelling charges of cruelty have been pressed into service in order to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner. As a result of this, an FIR came to be registered on 23rd of March 2007 before the police station, Women, Rambagh, Srinagar, which has consequently resulted into filing of the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, recourse to quashment of the same has been taken before this Court. 3-4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, it is necessary to indicate certain facts: Petitioner and respondent No. 3 were married in the year 1994 and out of the said marriage, two children were born. Incompatibility resulted into acrimony and as such, the relationship of husband and wife were strained. After having failed to persuade the police to proceed in the FIR, referred to above, an application came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, by the complainant seeking a direction to the SHO concerned for conducting investigation into the matter by invoking clause 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. The allegations in the application can be summarized, as under :-- a. That the petitioner was demanding dowry from the complainant as also her full salary who is a doctor by profession; b. To purchase a house by the father of the complainant at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, in the name of the children of the complainant and petitioner; c. That an effort was made by the petitioner and his family members to burn the complainant. 5. In pursuance to the directions issued by the learned Magistrate, investigation was taken over by the police concerned. An application for initiating contempt proceedings against the SHO concerned for not complying with the directions of the Court was also filed and it was on the initiation of the said proceedings, report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that according to the FIR, the date of occurrence is 10th of Jan., 07 whereas, the FIR has been lodged on 23rd of March, 07. It is further contended that the complainant had filed a suit for recovery of past maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that according to the FIR, the date of occurrence is 10th of Jan., 07 whereas, the FIR has been lodged on 23rd of March, 07. It is further contended that the complainant had filed a suit for recovery of past maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1.20 lacs from 25th of April, 06 till 31st of March, 07, before the Court of Additional District Judge, Srinagar. The said Court vide its order dated 21st of June, 07, has awarded compensation of Rs. 5000/- each in favour of the two children. A revision against the aforementioned order came to be filed before this Court wherein vide order dated 3rd of Aug., 07, this Court reduced the amount of interim maintenance from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- i.e. Rs. 4000/- in favour Jivjyot Singh, (minor) and Rs. 3000/- in favour of Prajyot Singh (minor). 7. It is further contended by the petitioner that in para-5 of the suit, the complainant has stated that petitioner has deserted his wife and two children on 25th of April, 06, and therefore, the assertion of the complainant that she was forced out of the house on l0th of Jan., 07, is not correct. 8. Coming to the contents of the FIR and report under Section 173, it is revealed from the statement of witnesses that after the marriage of the petitioner and complainant, they remained happy. It is only after some time that the petitioner started harassing the complainant on one pretext or the other. It is further revealed from the statement of the witnesses and the complainant that on 10th of Jan., 07, the complainant was thrown out of her house along with the two minor children and she was compelled to live separately. 9. Petitioner's contention is that the present complaint has been filed with the intent to harass him and wreack vengeance on account of matrimonial discord which persists between the petitioner and the complainant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Exercise of power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exception not the rule. This Section does not confer any new power on the Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possesses before the enactment of the Code. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Exercise of power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exception not the rule. This Section does not confer any new power on the Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possesses before the enactment of the Code. The power can be exercised under three situations :-- (a) to give effect to an order under the Code; (b) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and (c) to otherwise secure the ends of justice 12. All such powers are necessary to do the right and to undo the wrong in the course of administration of justice. This power is to be exercised to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. The Courts are for advancement of justice and any process which prevents promotion of justice, the power of the Court can be exercised. While exercising the power, the Court would be justified to quash any proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of process of Court or quashing of these proceedings otherwise would serve the ends of justice. While exercising this power, three situations must exist:-- (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e. g. want of sanction; (ii) 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; (iii) where the allegations constitute the offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 13. Dealing with the last category, it be seen that a distinction has to be kept in view between a case where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove a charge and where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. Embarking upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or where on reasonable appreciation, accusation would not be sustained, is not the job of this Court in the present proceedings. Embarking upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or where on reasonable appreciation, accusation would not be sustained, is not the job of this Court in the present proceedings. However, a judicial process should not become an instrument of oppression, or needless harassment. Applying these principles to the present case, it would not be appropriate for this Court to embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. But, what is required to be seen is that whether there is legal evidence to support the case of the complainant and whether the evidence is inconsistent with the accusation made. 14. In order to appreciate this controversy in the light of observations made here-in-above, following relevant facts be noted as revealed from report under Section 173:-- (i) that the complainant along with two children was thrown out by the petitioner out of the house on 10th of Jan., 07 and the FIR was registered on 23rd of March, 07; (ii) that in the suit filed by the complainant on behalf of her children seeking maintenance from the petitioner, it has been stated by her that she was thrown out by the petitioner from her house on 25th of April, 06, which is clearly contrary to what she has stated in the FIR; (iii) that the witnesses examined under Section 161, Cr.P. C., state that the petitioner and the complainant lived happily after marriage and without any hassles; (iv) that the statement of the complainant that the petitioner had demanded ornaments from her does not find support from the statement of the witnesses made under Section 161. 15. On the basis of aforementioned facts, one can draw an inference that the present proceedings have been launched in order to wreack vengeance are clearly borne out from the nature of allegations and attending circumstances. The complainant as per her own showing stated that the date of occurrence was 10th of Jan., 07, when she was thrown out of the house by the petitioner, when in fact, on her own showing, she is stated to have deserted by the petitioner on 25th of April, 06. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has been paying maintenance to his children right from 25th of April, 06, till today. 16. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has been paying maintenance to his children right from 25th of April, 06, till today. 16. The other aspect is that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnized in the year 1994 and the allegations of demand of dowry by the petitioner have been levelled in the year 2007 i.e. more than 13 years of the marriage. It may also be noted that this Court vide order dated 16th of May, 08, directed both the parties to appear in the Court for negotiated settlement. On 29th of April, 09, when the matter was taken up by this Court, the petitioner had expressed his desire to settle the dispute with the complainant amicably. Direction was accordingly issued by this Court to the complainant vide the aforementioned order to appear in this Court on 29th of June, 09. Thereafter on 12th of Oct., 09, learned counsel for the complainant had undertaken to produce the complainant next day for effecting compromise. The complainant, however, did not appear despite various directions issued to her for effecting compromise, which clearly reflects that the intent and purpose of the complainant is only to harass the petitioner in pursuing the complaint. 17. The scope and power of the Court to quash proceedings under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., has been elaborately dealt with by the Apex Court in the case reported as State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527). The Apex Court summarized the categories of cases wherein power under Section 561-A is required to be exercised. These are as under :-- "(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a congnizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in Code the or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 18. While examining category (7), it clearly emerges that criminal proceedings can be quashed where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive in order to wreak vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudge. Applying this principle to the present case, it emerges that the complainant has levelled charges of cruelty against the petitioner after a lapse of 13 years of marriage. The intent and sole purpose of the said act on the part of complainant is only to harass the petitioner. 19. Applying this principle to the present case, it emerges that the complainant has levelled charges of cruelty against the petitioner after a lapse of 13 years of marriage. The intent and sole purpose of the said act on the part of complainant is only to harass the petitioner. 19. In matrimonial matters, there are two ways to sort out the problem i.e. (i) either to reconcile the differences and live together as husband and wife; and (ii) in case, the reconciliation is not possible, then to separate amicably. 20. There is no third possibility in such matters and it is always that one of the spouses tends to keep the things in a state of suspension with an intent to harass the other spouse. It is in these situations where the Courts are called upon to exercise the judicial discretion to ensure that frivolous and the mala fide litigations are not encouraged. 21. In the present case also, as noticed above, despite number of opportunities given to the complainant, she did not turn up for amicable settlement of the dispute even though, the petitioner had expressed his desire to effect a compromise with the complainant. This clearly reflects the mala fide intent on the part of the complainant to harass the petitioner. 22. For the reasons stated above, I allow this petition and quash the FIR No. 11/2007, registered against the petitioner with the police Station, Women, Ram Bagh, Srinagar