1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 561-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C), seeking to quash FIR No. 16/2010 Registered at Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu, under section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, P.C. Act) read with sections 161 and 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code (for short, RPC), on the grounds taken in the petition. 2. It appears that an FIR was lodged on 18.05.2010 by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu, against the petitioner herein and one Shamas Din, Forester and both were taken into custody. Thereafter they were released on bail. It is stated that the petitioner is not involved in the case and has not committed any offence. Vigilance Organization, Jammu has falsely implicated him on the basis of a false complaint made by one Sh. Sher Singh. 3. Admittedly, FIR was lodged on 18.05.2010 and petitioner was arrested along with one Shamas Din, Forester. More than two years have elapsed from the date of lodging of the FIR till today, but the petitioner neither made any whisper about his arrest nor conducting of the investigation by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that said Shamas Din has also filed a petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C, bearing no. 106/2010 seeking quashing of the FIR and has obtained a stay order. The said facts are not pleaded in the petition, however, a mention of the same has been made in the synopsis, annexed with the petition and, that is why, the petitioner has filed the instant petition after a lapse of more than 2 years after lodging of the FIR. 5. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 561-A Cr.P.C herein:- "561 -A. Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be 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." 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. 6. The Apex Court in Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, 2008 AIR SCW1003, and M. N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav, AIR 2010 SC 201 , while laying down the tests, has held that the remedy under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C of Central Code) and inherent power should not be exercised by the Courts in a routine manner, rather has to be exercised sparingly, carefully with caution and in rarest of rare cases. 7. Applying the aforesaid tests, it can be safely said that the petitioner has failed to carve out a case. 8. This Court also in a case, Mian Abdul Qayoom v. State & others, 561-A Cr.P.C. 98/2010, decided on 31.12.2010, reported in 2011 (1) JKJ 470 (HC), has held that the Courts should refrain from making prima facie decision at the infancy stage or in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy. 9. The power under section 561-A Cr.P.C. has to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. The case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the said parameters. It is beaten law of the land that conducting of investigation cannot be scuttled away en-route. 10. I have gone through the entire petition and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the case of petitioner falls within the ambit/contours of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. Virtually, the petitioner is trying to get a restraint order at this belated stage so that the charge sheet is not presented before the Court of Law. 11. In the given circumstance, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine along with all connected CrMPs. 12. Registry to convey the order to the Vigilance Organization, Jammu.