1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 7.2.2002 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Jammu, whereby petitioner came to be charge sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under sections 419 and 420 Ranbir Penal Code (hereinafter, for short, RFC), on the grounds taken in the petition (hereinafter, for short, impugned judgment). 2. In terms of mandate of section 435 (4-a) Criminal Procedure Code (herein­after, for short, Cr.P.C.) no revision lies against the order of charge. 3. It is also beaten law of the land that remedy under section 561-A Cr.P.C. is to be invoked/exercised cautiously, sparingly and rarely. 4. Apex Court also held that power is to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. It has also laid down the parameters and guidelines in cases titled as K.L.E Society & Ors. v. Siddalingesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1993; A.P v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah reported as 2008 AIR SCW 7860 and Reshma Bano Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1998. 5. Apex Court in AIR 2004 SC 3967 , AIR 1972 SC 484 , AIR 1974 SC 1446, AIR 1977 SC 2229 , AIR 1989 SC 01, has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 10,17 & 19 out of the judgment titled as Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1003 herein. "10. In a catena of decisions this Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code in a routine manner. It has been consistently held that the power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." "17. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC 655 this Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and has given the working that in exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not." "19. We may observe here that despite this Court consistently held in catena of decisions that inherent, power of the High Court should not be exercised according to whims and caprice and it has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, we often come across the High Court exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a routine manner at its whims and caprice setting at naught the cognizance taken and the FIR lodged at the threshold commit­ting grave miscarriage of justice. While it is true that so long as the inherent power of Section 482 is in the Statute Book, exercise of such power is not impermissible but it must be noted that such power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, the sole aim of which is to secure the ends of justice. The power under Section 482 is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold." 6. While keeping in view the scope of Section 561-A Cr.P.C, the Court should refrain from making prima facie decision at interlocutory stage when entire facts of the case are incomplete, hazy and more so, when material evidence is yet to be collected and issues involved could not be seen in their true perspective. 7. The petition in hand merits to be dismissed on the following grounds: 8. 7. The petition in hand merits to be dismissed on the following grounds: 8. Final police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented by the police before Principal Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Jammu against the petitioner and proforma respondents in FIR No. 4/2001 lodged at J.I.C., Jammu under sections 3 of Enemy Agents Ordinance (hereinafter, for short, EAO), 13 of Unlawful Activities Act (hereinafter for short, ULAA) and 121-A, 124-A, 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code (hereinafter, for short, RPC) and 12 of Passport Act. 9. The trial court after hearing the arguments discharged all the accused for the commission of offence punishable under section 3 of EAO. Petitioner-Ghulam Ahmad Mir came to be charged for the commission of offence punishable under sections 419 and 420 RFC. Thus he stands discharged for the commission of other offences also. 10. As discussed hereinabove, framing of charge is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against the said order. The remedy under section 561-A Cr.P.C. can be invoked when the proceedings are abuse of process of law. The trial court has discussed the entire record which includes statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., material collected during investigation and prima facie came to the conclu­sion that there are grounds to presume that petitioner Ghulam Ahmad Mir had impersonated before PW Ghulam Mohd. Shah and obtained from him registered letter after giving proper receipt. It is apt to reproduce relevant para of the im­pugned order herein: "...Similarly, I find the statement of PW Gh. Mohammad Shah before whom Gh. Ahmed Mir appeared and posed himself to be the brother of Gh. Hussain Mir and obtained registered letter from him after giving proper receipt when in fact as evident from the evidence of PW Noor Bibi, Arshad Hussain, Mohd. Yaqoob and Mst. Haseena Begum who knew deceased Gh. Hussain and accused Gh. Ahmed Mir as former used to visit latter's residence, that Gh. Hussain Mir died in the year 1998 and thereafter obtained registered letter which was in the name of Gh. Hussain Mir who was not found being dead in the year 1998 by accused Gh. Ahmed Mir posing himself to be his brother when parentage and residence of both was not the same. Further the specimen signature of accused Gh. Ahmed Mir obtained in presence of the Magistrate and sent for comparison with the signature of accused Gh. Hussain Mir who was not found being dead in the year 1998 by accused Gh. Ahmed Mir posing himself to be his brother when parentage and residence of both was not the same. Further the specimen signature of accused Gh. Ahmed Mir obtained in presence of the Magistrate and sent for comparison with the signature of accused Gh. Ahmed Mir obtained on the receipt of delivery of the registered letter tallies as is reported by FSL. Therefore, all this material on record is prima facie sufficient to establish offence under Section 419/420 RPC against accused Gh. Ahmed Mir." 11. Thus I am of the considered view that prima facie there is a ground for presuming that the accused is involved for the commission of offence under sections 419 and 420 RPC and that material is sufficient for framing charge. 12. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed along with all Cr.M.Ps. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from 1st June 2011. Petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 1.6.20H. 13. Registry to send down the record along with a copy of this order.