1. Manzoor Ahmad Khan -- petitioner herein, faces trial on the charge of offences punishable under section 409, 109, 201, RPC and has been vide trial court order impugned in the petition formally charged of the offences alleged in charge sheet. 2. Petitioner through the medium of instant petition under section 561-A CRPC seeks quashment of trial court order dated 29-9-2009, whereby he has been ordered to be formally charged of the aforementioned offences as also the proceedings emanating therefrom. First an overview of allegations set out in the charge sheet against petitioner. 3. Shri Bashir Ahmad Khan, Assistant Director (Store) on 4th May, 2007, vide his no. CAPD/ADS/ I-149/8852 lodged a written compliant with Police Station, Awantipora alleging therein that physical verification/counting of gunny bags at Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (CAPD) godown at Lethpora revealed a shortfall of 17,71,646 empty gunny bags up to 31st December 2006. The report indentified Shri Abdul Majeed Khan and present petitioner as the officials responsible for custody of the misappropriated property and the shortfall. Receipt of the aforementioned communication led to the registration of case FIR no. 62/2007 under section 409, 109 RPC at Police Station, Awantipora. The investigation was taken over by Shri Nissar Ahmad Mir, Inspector 4518/NGO-SHO, Awantipora. Shri Masood Ahmad Baig, Inspector 3082/NGO Police Station Awantipora and Mohammad Ashraf Bakshi, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Awantipora, also conducted part investigation and it was concluded by Shri Mohammad Yaqoob, DSP, Awantipora. The investigation was concluded as proved against Abdul Majeed Khan and the present petitioner and the charge sheet alleging commission of offences punishable under section 409, 107, 201 RPC found prima facie proved against the accused. Police station Awantipora accordingly laid a charge sheet before Learned JMIC, Pampore on 21.9.2007. Learned CJIM on going through the charge sheet, statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 cr. P. C. and other material appended therewith and upon hearing the prosecuting officer and the accused as required under section 251-A Cr. P. C., found the accused to have prima-facie committed the offences punishable under section 409, 109, 201 RPC. He accordingly decided to formally charge the accused of the aforementioned offence. Charges where framed on 20.10.2008. The accused pleaded not guilty and the prosecution was asked to adduce evidence to substantiate the charge. 4. P. C., found the accused to have prima-facie committed the offences punishable under section 409, 109, 201 RPC. He accordingly decided to formally charge the accused of the aforementioned offence. Charges where framed on 20.10.2008. The accused pleaded not guilty and the prosecution was asked to adduce evidence to substantiate the charge. 4. Petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 29.09.2008 in exercise of inherent powers under section 561-A Cr PC on the grounds set out in the petition. 5. I have gone through the petition as also the trial court record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The CAPD department provides food grains to the rationees through its sales outlets in rural and urban areas of the state. The food grains after their procurement from sources within and outside the state are carried in gunny bags to food grain stores of the department. From perusal of trial court record it transpires that the empty gunny bags, after the food grains carried in them are disposed of, are deposited in CAPD godowns at Lethpora. The receipt of empty gunny bags is periodically reported by the store keeper Lethpora godowns to Assistant Director, Stores, CAPD department. 7. On physical verification of the stores made by Shri Bashir Ahmad Dar, Assistant Director, Enforcement, and Iftikhar Hussain Kirmani, Assistant Director on the orders of Director CAPD department only 12,15,450 as against 29,87,096 empty gunny bags were found in the store. The accused were found to have misappropriated 17,71,646 gunny bags. Misappropriation detected was reported to Director CAPD department. On his direction the matter was reported to Police Station Awantipora leading to registration of case FIR 62/2007 under section 409, 109 RPC. 8. The prosecution case is that Shri Abdul Majeed Khan son of Abdul Gani Khan resident of Firdous Abad, Batamaloo, was posted as Storekeeper CAPD Store Lethpora and Shri Manzoor Ahmad Khan son of Ghulam Ahmad Khan resident of Shaheed Gunj, at present Budshah Nagar, Natipora, was posted in bag section to assist the Storekeeper and that the gunny bags were entrusted to both of them and, therefore, both were responsible for misappropriation of the entrusted property and liable to be punished under section 409 read with section 109 RPC. 9. 9. Petitioner's case is that there is no material on the file to indicate that the property i.e. empty gunny bags, was entrusted within meaning of section 405 RPC to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed criminal breach of trust. It is pleaded that even if the petitioner is held to have been deputed to assist the main accused i.e. Storekeeper CAPD store Lethpora, in discharge of his day-to-day duties, the petitioner cannot be roped in, as the material on the file does not point to entrustment of the property to the petitioner. It is next argued that the allegation that the petitioner made false entries in the records to help the main accused to commit criminal breach of trust and, therefore, abetted the offence, is also devoid of any substance inasmuch as there is no allegation of commission of offence punishable under section 467 RPC against the petitioner. 10. It has been emphasized times without number through authoritative judicial pronouncements that inherent powers under section 561-A cr. P.C. are to be exercised rarely, sparingly and with due circumspection. The power cannot be used to stifle investigation or even prosecution as the law is to be allowed to have its own course and the investigation or prosecution to be taken to its logical end. The court is to be conscious of the fact that the investigation or prosecution does not shut the door on the accused to make an effort to challenge veracity of the case set up against him and even put forth his defence. The accused, therefore, is to have a full and fair opportunity to impeach and discredit the prosecution witnesses and other evidence pressed into by prosecution to bring home guilt to the accused and get the clean and honourable acquittal in the event trial court does not find any merit in the prosecution case. The inherent power under section 561-A cr P. C. can be exercised only where facts and events narrated in the FIR or the material collected during investigation when taken on its face value does not make out the offence against the accused. The inherent power under section 561-A cr P. C. can be exercised only where facts and events narrated in the FIR or the material collected during investigation when taken on its face value does not make out the offence against the accused. In such a case it would be of no use to proceed with the investigation or prosecution as even if the contents of FIR or the charge sheet and material appended thereto are taken as gospel truth or allowed to be proved, no offence would be made out against the accused. The investigation and the trial in such case would invite exercise of inherent powers. In such a case, though the investigation or prosecution does not amount to penalizing the accused yet it puts restraint on his personal liberty guaranteed under section 21 Constitution of India. 11. The Supreme Court has summed up the guidelines that must govern exercise of inherent powers in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 606. These are: "108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 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. 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 F.I.R. 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. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 a 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." The guidelines have been reiterated in the subsequent cases on the subject. 12. Let us examine the grounds urged in the petition on the anvil of the aforementioned guidelines. 13. Perusal of trial court record reveals that a number of officials of the CAPD department examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation and their statements recorded under section 161-A cr. P. C. have stated that the petitioner and the Storekeeper (accused no. 12. Let us examine the grounds urged in the petition on the anvil of the aforementioned guidelines. 13. Perusal of trial court record reveals that a number of officials of the CAPD department examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation and their statements recorded under section 161-A cr. P. C. have stated that the petitioner and the Storekeeper (accused no. 1 in the charge sheet) were entrusted the property alleged to have been misappropriated by them and were factually and actually in control of it. Reference in this regard may be made to statements of Bashir Ahmad Zargar, Head Assistant, CAPD Directorate, Administration branch, Bashir Ahmad Khan, Assistant Director, Stores, CAPD, Shabir Ahmad Bangru, Incharge General Section CAPD Directorate Administration branch, Ghulam Ahmad Khan, Chief Accounts Officer, CAPD, Iftikhar Ahmad Kirmani, Assistant Director, CAPD. There is material available on the file to prima facie establish that the petitioner together with accused no. 1 were having custody and control over the property in question, had been entrusted with it, and allegedly misappropriated it i.e. empty gunny bags. They, in the circumstances, prima facie committed offences punishable under sections 409, 109, 201 RPC. The trial court, therefore, was right in concluding that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and other accused and a formal charge warranted to be framed against them. 14. The argument that as the prosecution has not alleged commission of offence punishable under section 467 RPC against the petitioner, the allegation that the petitioner made incorrect entries in the record to aid and assist the accused no. 1 in commission of the offence, is of no help to the petitioner at least at present. How omission to allege commission of offence under section 467 RPC is to impact the outcome of trial is to be appreciated by the trial court only after the prosecution witnesses cross the witness box and the petitioner and the accused no. 1 offer their explanation, if any, required having regard to the nature of prosecution evidence and adduce evidence in their defence. 15. For the reasons discussed, the petition is bereft of merit and the petitioner fails to make out a case for exercise of inherent powers under section 561-A cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 29.09.2008. 16. Dismissed. 17. Trial court record be sent down immediately. 18. 15. For the reasons discussed, the petition is bereft of merit and the petitioner fails to make out a case for exercise of inherent powers under section 561-A cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 29.09.2008. 16. Dismissed. 17. Trial court record be sent down immediately. 18. The trial court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously and list the matter at least once in two weeks so that the trial that is delayed because of pendency of the present petition is concluded with due dispatch. 19. The parties to appear before the trial court on 10.03.2014.