1. Petitioner has filed this petition invoking inherent powers of this Court under section 561-A Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) for quashing FIR No. 04/2013 under sec. 380 R.P.C. registered with Police Station, Parimpora against him on a report lodged by respondent-6. 2. I have heard Id. counsel for the parties, gone through the petition and perused the record. 3. Briefly, facts are that on 8.1.2013 informant/respondent-6 lodged a report with the police alleging that on 31.12.2012 accused/petitioner, who was his tenant, committed theft of Rs.1, 50,000/from his house. The report was lodged at the concerned Police Post and on its basis First Information Report (FIR) No. 4/2013 under sec. 380 R.P.C came to be registered with Police Station, Parimpora and investigation commenced. 4. The petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that the allegation leveled against him is false and baseless. It is stated in the petition that petitioner along with his wife was putting up in rented accommodation in the house of respondent-6 at Mansoor Colony, Bemina. On asking of respondent-6, he vacated his house in the first week of December, 2012, though he left behind some of his household goods, which were to be lifted by him on arranging alternative accommodation. On 2.1.2013, when petitioner was on his duty at Karlgund, Handwara, his wife along with her brother went to the house of respondent-6 for collecting their household goods. However, respodnent-6 and his brothers-in-law abused them and did not allow them to lift the goods. They manhandled petitioner's wife and passed obscene remarks on her. She made an application in this regard for lodging FIR to Station House Officer, Police Station, Parimpora/respondent-3. Respondent-3, however, did not take any action against respondent-6 as he was under the influence of Head Constable Mohd. Ibrahim/respondent-5 who happens to be the close relative of respondent-6. Instead, a false FIR was registered against the petitioner and investigation was handed over to respondent-5 (Mohd. Ibrahim). It is further contended that FIR has been lodged eight days after the alleged occurrence. The petitioner on the date of alleged occurrence was attending his duty at Fire and Emergency Services Station, Kralgund, Handwara, which stands evidenced by copy of the duty slip/naqlimand issued by the In-chrage of said Fire Station annexed with the petition as annexure-'D'. 5. It is further contended that FIR has been lodged eight days after the alleged occurrence. The petitioner on the date of alleged occurrence was attending his duty at Fire and Emergency Services Station, Kralgund, Handwara, which stands evidenced by copy of the duty slip/naqlimand issued by the In-chrage of said Fire Station annexed with the petition as annexure-'D'. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to project that registration of the FIR with the Police and investigation by the police are sheer abuse of process of law as the report was motivated and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He referred to annexure 'D' annexed with the petition, which is copy of Daily Diary of Fire and Emergency Services, Kralgund dated 30/31 Dec. 2012 and submitted that the petitioner was present in his office at Kralgund, which is situate away from the place of alleged occurrence, on the date of alleged occurrence. He also referred to annexure-C annexed with the petition, which according to him is the report lodged by the wife of the petitioner as regards the assault on her by respondent-6 and his brother-in-law on 2.1.2013 to make it that report lodged by respondent-6 was an offshoot of the report lodged by the wife of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Id. AAG submitted that no case for quashing the FIR and investigation in exercise of inherent powers of this Court is made out because a specific allegation of theft has been lodged by the informant/respondent-6 and documents being relied upon by the petitioner may not be taken at their face value by this Court which, however, can be produced before the Investigating Officer. 7. High Court under section 561-A of the Code (sec. 482 of the Central Code) is vested with inherent jurisdiction to make such order as may be necessary to give-effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to seek quashing of FIR and investigation by the police or any criminal proceedings pending in any Court if it is shown to the satisfaction of the High Court that such proceedings is the abuse of process of that Court or the quashing is otherwise required to secure the ends of justice. The jurisdiction of the High Court is vast indeed but it is well settled that this jurisdiction is to be exercised cautiously, carefully and sparingly and the Court has not to function as a Court of appeal or revision. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , has given categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power can be used either to prevent the abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. The categories given by the Hon'ble Apex Hon'ble Court are: "108. 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 S. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 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 cognizance 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 S. 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 Act concerned (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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". 8. It has been noticed that the FIR has been registered because of a specific allegation of theft of Rs.1,50,000/- from the house of informant/respondent-6, which constitutes a cognizable offence punishable under sec. 380 RPC. This allegation according to the petitioner is false and has been lodged as counter to the report lodged by his wife against respondent-6 and his brothers-in-law. It needs to be emphasized here that purpose of investigation in a criminal case by the investigating agency is not only to collect the evidence against the accused but also to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the report lodged with the police. In that direction the Investigating Officer is required also to entertain and take into consideration all the useful material/evidence if produced by or on behalf of the accused. Investigation by the police of a specific allegation, which prima facie amounts to commission of a cognizable offence, cannot be called as abuse of the process of law and should not be interfered with in exercise of the inherent power of this Court unless some exceptional case in that regard is made out. Petitioner says that he was performing his official duty in his office at the time of alleged occurrence. Well, he should have placed his version before the Investigation Officer rather than invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. 9. Viewed thus, the case projected by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR does not satisfy the ambit and contour of sec. 561-A of the Code and no case for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under sec. 561-A of the Code is made out. 9. Viewed thus, the case projected by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR does not satisfy the ambit and contour of sec. 561-A of the Code and no case for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under sec. 561-A of the Code is made out. Nonetheless, while considering the scenario in backdrop of the facts that immediately before the date of alleged occurrence there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the informant and the petitioner and that the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, it is suggested that, before adverting to the petitioner in connection with the investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer should look into and collect evidence as regards the source of big amount of Rs.1,50,000/with respondent-6 in his house on the day of alleged occurrence. However, course and method of investigation is open to the Investigating Officer. 10. For all what has been said above, this petition is dismissed as without merit.