JUDGMENT By the medium of present peti­tion, petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the investigation/ pro­ceedings commenced against the ac­cused pursuant to FIR No. 175/1998 of Police Station Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, now being investigated by the Crime Branch, Srinagar/ Jammu. 2. Imperative it would be to have a little narration of the events the way these are projected and are pleaded to have made the petitioner to knock the doors of this court and seek the relief as reflected above, therefore: BRIEF FACTS 3. A Case FIR No. 175/1998 had been registered on 16th June, 1998, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,468, 120-B of Ranbir Penal Code, for short as RPC, read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Cor­ruption Act, for short as PC Act, in pur­suance to a complaint forwarded to the police by one R. K. Handa, Vice Chair­man, Jammu Development Authority, for short as complainant. 4. It was stated in the complaint that he had received a closed, anonymous envelope on 12th June, 1998. The en­velope contained a photo copy of the let­ter addressed to M/s Infrastructure Project Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter for short as IPPL, under the forged signatures of the undersigned. It was further stated therein that on 13th June, 1998, one more envelope was received through courier from Klen & Marshals Manu­facturers & Exporters Ltd., hereinafter for short as Company containing the photo copy of same letter. The signa­ture on the letter was disowned by the complainant and requested for a probe. 5. It is the investigation of this com­plaint which is stated to have led to the involvement of petitioner who has noth­ing to do with any of the episodes of the matter. He is pleaded to be a consult­ant for the Company, which had re­ceived, in its favour, a Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Jammu's Guarantee of Rs. 475 lacs from IPPL. The Company forwarded the same to its bankers ICICI Bank at Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The said Bank guarantee was not encashed as its payment was stopped because of the lodgment of above said FIR. 6. The petitioner is stated to be in­nocent, therefore, the FIR/ proceed­ings drawn in the matter are sought to be quashed vis-a-vis his person. 7. The Company forwarded the same to its bankers ICICI Bank at Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The said Bank guarantee was not encashed as its payment was stopped because of the lodgment of above said FIR. 6. The petitioner is stated to be in­nocent, therefore, the FIR/ proceed­ings drawn in the matter are sought to be quashed vis-a-vis his person. 7. This is a controversy seen from one angle; the other angle would be that an FIR No. 175/1998 was lodged with Police Station Trikuta Nagar, now being investigated by the Crime Branch, Srinagar/Jammu. Police con­ducted investigation. 8. The FIR was originally lodged at Police Station Trikuta Nagar under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B of RPC read with 5(2) of P.C. Act and was be­ing investigated by the police, however, later on the same has been transferred to Crime Branch vide PHQ Order No. 2317 dated 20.07.1998 and case has been closed as proved against accused Jayant Bhuta and others. 9. The petitioner's role in the crime, as stated by respondents, is that he was a Director of the Company and connived with accused Jayant Bhuta of IPPL; pre­pared fake bills and accepted the same for discounting of bank guarantee No. 1/97 for Rs. 4.75 crores for pecuniary benefits. It is further alleged that Memorandum of Understanding, (MOU) was signed by accused Jayant Bhuta with one James Nova, Asstt. Vice Presi­dent Operations, of the Company and prepared dishonestly and an ample evi­dence of this is the discounting of fake bills through M/S ICCI Chennai thereby causing wrongful of Rs. 2.12 crores for himself. He also made fake entries and cheques to show that an amount of Rs. 1.43 crores was paid to M/S Alchemy Enterprises and that through fake debit notes the amount was returned to the Company by IPPL towards the charges which would be spent for raising finances against guar­antee of Rs. 57 crores which was yet to be issued. This was found done dishon­estly for adjusting the amount which he could not otherwise legally hold. This clearly shows that petitioner was a party to the fraud. 10. During the pendency of investi­gation some of the interested persons questioned the lodgment of FIR and proceedings drawn. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.12.1998, the Photostat copy of which is on the file. 11. This clearly shows that petitioner was a party to the fraud. 10. During the pendency of investi­gation some of the interested persons questioned the lodgment of FIR and proceedings drawn. The said petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.12.1998, the Photostat copy of which is on the file. 11. The petitioner did not join the proceedings at that time, but has ques­tioned it now as far as it involves him in the commission of offences in terms of the Final Report submitted to the court of competent jurisdiction, where the accused are facing trial. 12. Heard Counsel for the parties. 13. Record was sent for vide order dated 18th February, 2010, and after noticing that trial is getting hampered on this count, this court vide order dated 6th May, 2011, directed for send­ing the record back. 14) All said and done, the moot question for deter­mination would only be, as to whether petitioner's claim to quash all the pro­ceedings is justifiable notwithstanding the fact that he stands chargesheeted and has pleaded not guilty? 15. The answer in unambiguous terms is an emphatic 'NO', for the fol­lowing reasons: 16. The Apex Court in cases reported as 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 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 ; SLJ 2005 VOL-I, 118; 2008 AIR SCW, 1003; 2008 AIR SCW 1993; 2008 AIR SCW 1998; 2008 AIR SCW, 4614; 2008 AIR SCW 7680; 2008 AIR SCW 2778; and AIR 2010 SC 201 , has discussed the scope of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short as Cr. P.C., corresponding to Section 482 Cr. P.C. of Central Code, and has set the following pre-requisites to be adhered: "a. 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. P.C., corresponding to Section 482 Cr. P.C. of Central Code, and has set the following pre-requisites to be adhered: "a. 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. b. 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. c. 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. d. 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. e. 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. f. 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; g. 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". 17. 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 down. 18. 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. 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 down. 18. 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. Vs. Siddalingesh reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1993; A.P Vs. Bajjoori Kanthaiah reported as 2008 AIR SCW 7860 and Reshma Bano Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported as 2008 AIR SCW 1998. 19. This court in case titled Mian Abdul Qayoom Vs. State and others re­ported as 2011 (1) JKJ 470 has also held it to be impermissible to scuttle the case/ trial enroute. This court, while having regard to the existence of Sec­tion 561-A Cr. P.C. in the Statute Book, cannot lose sight of the fact that jurisdiction under said Section has to be exercised sparingly with circumspec­tion and in the rarest of rare cases. 20. 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, out of the judg­ment titled as Som Mittal Vs. 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...." 21. Expressing adherence to the pre­requisites discussed above, coupled with the fact that matter stands already considered and rejected by this court, though petitioner was not party at that time; the investigating agency has found petitioner involved and trial court also has prima-facie made an opinion against him, the petition in hand is held to be without any merit. It gains more significance for the reason that order, by virtue of which charge came to be framed against him, is an inter­locutory order and cannot be questioned by way of revision. Virtually the peti­tioner has sought revision under the garb of this petition which is imper­missible. It pains me to write that pe­titioner has delayed the trial for the last three years. 22. In these circumstances, the pe­tition in hand is dismissed with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date copy of the order is made avail­able to it and report compliance. 23. The contempt petition too shall stand dismissed in the circumstances. 24. Registry to convey the order to the trial court. ___________