1. Petitioners seek quashment of complaint presented by respondent, Rahila, before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge) Pattan with the allegation that one Firdous Ahmacl Mir by deceitful means, induced, abducted and took her to kupwara, where she was subjected to rape. The inducement, abduction, and rape was with abetment of other accused, the details of whom are given in the complaint. 2. Ld. Sub Judge, Pattan after recording statement of complainant and two witnesses/directed SSP, Baramulla to seek an explanation from SDPO Pattan and SHO Kreeri, as to why they have failed to register a case and in the meantime, he was directed to lodge the FIR in the matter. Consequently FIR No. 55/2012 was registered and is under investigation. 3. Four persons namely Firdous Ahmad Mir, Ishfaq Ahmad Mir, Ali Mohammad Mir and Majaz Nabi Lone, have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Baramulla vide oder dated 30th July, 2012. 4. Petitioners Saida Bano, Farida Jan and Dilshada Akhter who are also figuring in the said FIR have approached this court for quashment of the FIR. 5. The question is as to whether the F.I.R. containing allegations, which set the police in motion, can be quashed at this very threshold stage? The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 6. It is apt to reproduce Section 561-A Cr.P.C herein:- "561 -A, Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall he deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 7. This remedy can be invoked/pressed into service or may be exercised in the following circumstances:- i) To pass orders in order to give effect to an order passed under Cr.P.C; ii) to prevent abuse of process of Court; iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice; and iv) to prevent mis-carriage of justice. 8. The Investigating officer has filed the status report which transpires that the investigation is still at it's thresh hold stage. 8. The Investigating officer has filed the status report which transpires that the investigation is still at it's thresh hold stage. The investigating officer has yet to ascertain the particulars of telephone numbers, the persons who used the telephones and who are the detenues who are also allegedly involved in the commission of offences and he is yet to take the investigation to its logical end. 9. Keeping in view the allegations contained in the F.I.R, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the case of petitioner falls within the ambit/contours of Section 561-ACr.P.C. 10. Apex Court in the cases reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 ; AIR 1964 SC 01; AIR 1972 SC 484 ; AIR 1974 SC 1146 ; AIR 1977 SC 1489 ; AIR 1977 SC 2229 ; AIR 1980 SC 326 ; AIR 1989 SC 01; AIR 1990 SC 494 ; AIR 1991 SC 1260 ; AIR 1992 SC 604 ; AIR 1992 SC 892; AIR 1996 SC 309 ; AIR 1996 SC 2983 ; AIR 1999 SC 3596 ; AIR 1999 SC 1044 ; AIR 1999 SC 1216 ; AIR 2002 SC 671 ; AIR 2004 SC 3967 ; AIR 2005 SC 3212 ; 2004 (3) JKJ HC-609 : SLJ 2005 VOL-1118; 2008 AIR SCW 1003; 2008 AIR SCW 1993; 2008 AIR SCW 1998; 2008 AIR SCW 4614; 2008 AIR SCW 7680; 2008 AIR SCW 2778; AIR 2010 SC 201 has discussed the scope of section 561-A Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C of Central Code and has laid down the following tests: "1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if 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. 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. 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 cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of 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 the Code 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." 11. Applying the tests laid down, it can be safely said that the entire matter is at its infancy stage and does not fall within the four corners of the tests laid clown. 12. Keeping in view the fact that four persons have already been granted interim bail from the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Baramulla. Therefore, the petitioners are also at liberty to lay a motion for bail before the said court. 13. In the given circumstances, no case is made out, therefore, the petition is dismissed, along with CrMP.