JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short Cr. P.C. for quashing order dated 31.03.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No. 5/2017 in case titled "O.P. Kakroo & Anr. v. Rajan Gandhi & Anr.", by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. Additionally, petitioners also seek quashment of order dated 02.01.2017 passed by learned City Judge (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class), Jammu, in an application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. titled "Rajan Gandhi v. Chander Shekhar Kohli & Ors." The main facts as averred in the petition are that petitioners are serving as Regional Manager and Deputy General Manager in State Bank of India, Rail Head Complex, Jammu. One of employees of the State Bank of India, namely, Chander Shekhar Kohli while serving in the State Bank of India, Hari Market, Jammu Branch, was involved in some irregularity, for which departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the mother of said Chander Shekhar Kohli, namely, Chander Kanta Gandhi had a Bank Account No. 1052420381 in the said Branch, who passed away on 25.11.2015 and her son, namely, Rajan Gandhi, complainant-respondent claimed to have informed the then Manager of State Bank of India, Hari Market, Jammu, by written intimation on 18.01.2016 with a request that the account may not be operated till a joint written authorization from the legal heirs of the deceased-Chander Kanta Gandhi, is made as she had left behind the complainant-respondent-Rajan Gandhi as son besides a daughter Sarita Kohli and it was found that the account of deceased-Chander Kanta Gandhi, had been operated on 30.11.2015 just after five days of her death and an amount of Rs. 3.00 lac was transferred illegally from her account, and drawn in favour of Shivam Kohli, son of Chander Shekhar Kohli, who happens to be maternal grandson of the deceased. It was alleged by the complainant-respondent that this fraud and forgery to operate bank account of his deceased mother after her demise, had been committed by Mr. 3.00 lac was transferred illegally from her account, and drawn in favour of Shivam Kohli, son of Chander Shekhar Kohli, who happens to be maternal grandson of the deceased. It was alleged by the complainant-respondent that this fraud and forgery to operate bank account of his deceased mother after her demise, had been committed by Mr. Chander Shekhar Kohli, who is son-in-law of the deceased as being posted in the same Branch and that this fraud had been committed by said Chander Shekhar Kohli, having been facilitated by other officials of the said branch and his complaint right from 01.02.2016 till 22.06.2016, by urging right upto DGM, State Bank of India for an action in the matter, was not heeded. It is contended that respondent namely, Rajan Gandhi-real brother of said Chander Shekhar Kohli, approached the Court of learned City Judge, Jammu by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. against the Chander Shekhar Kohli, seeking therein registration of FIR for commission of offences punishable under Sections 404, 409, 467, 468, 120-B, 201 and 202 RPC and in the said application, petitioners have no role in the entire illegal transactions committed by the accused Chander Shekhar Kohli but trial court vide order dated 02.01.2017 has directed Sr. Superintendent of Police, Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. to investigate the matter after lodging an FIR. Thereafter, petitioners questioned the order dated 02.01.2017 by filing a Revision Petition bearing No. 05/2017 before the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, to set aside the same and the learned Judge vide order dated 31.03.2017 dismissed the said Revision Petition. Feeling aggrieved of the same, petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 561-A, Cr. P.C. 2. The main ground of challenge to the order impugned in the present petition is that learned City Judge (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class), Jammu vide order dated 02.01.2017 has failed to appreciate the crucial and significant aspect of the matter that in the application filed under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. without alleging anything against the petitioners, arrayed them as party respondents, and directed for registration of FIR against them, was contrary to the provisions of law. P.C. without alleging anything against the petitioners, arrayed them as party respondents, and directed for registration of FIR against them, was contrary to the provisions of law. Even otherwise, the learned Revisional Court also erred by incorporating in his order that order dated 02.01.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, is interlocutory in nature and on this ground the learned Revisional Court, while relying on the judgment of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, has dismissed the revision petition, even though the revision petition was maintainable. Learned Revisional Court is also stated to have not appreciated the decision of two Coordinate Division Benches of Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Aurangabad and Panaji Bench) whereby Hon'ble the Division Bench has held that the order directing investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C., not being a interlocutory order, but being a final order in a proceedings under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. would certainly be revisable under revisional powers of the Sessions Court or the High Court. But here in the present case, the Revisional Court without considering this aspect of the judgment has dismissed the revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the petition record. 4. It is apt to reproduce order dated 02.01.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class/City Judge, Jammu hereunder:- "... I have perused the complaint minutely from which it reveals that serious allegations seem to be made out against the accused persons. The complainant has also placed on record documents which transpires that applicant has complied the provision of Section 154 (1) and Section 154 (3) Cr. P.C. The application as well as documents placed on record, prima facie shows that the allegations which are made against the accused are very heinous and serious in nature, which required proper investigation. Accordingly, Sr. Suptd. of Police P/S Crime Branch, Jammu is directed to register FIR in terms of Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. against the accused persons. Copy of this order along with original application as well as documents annexed thereto, be forwarded to SSP P/S Crime Branch, Jammu for compliance." 5. Accordingly, Sr. Suptd. of Police P/S Crime Branch, Jammu is directed to register FIR in terms of Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. against the accused persons. Copy of this order along with original application as well as documents annexed thereto, be forwarded to SSP P/S Crime Branch, Jammu for compliance." 5. On perusal of aforementioned order, it reveals that learned City Judge, Jammu, after considering the contents of the complaint, duly supported by an affidavit, found that serious allegations seems to be made out against the accused persons and observed proper investigation and accordingly Police authority was directed to register FIR in terms of Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C., meaning thereby that a Magistrate under Section 190, Cr. P.C. may order such an investigation, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that learned Magistrate has directed to lodge FIR is only his presumption, even otherwise, the direction issued by the learned Magistrate has been passed in light of provisions of Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. 6. For facility of reference, paragraphs No. 17 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Appeal (Crl.) No. 491 of 2002, titled "Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi", reported as 2007 (6) Supreme 153 , is reproduced hereunder:- "17. The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all, registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of Cr. P.C. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P.C. that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Cr. P.C. that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Cr. P.C. only thereafter". 7. The question as to whether order passed under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. is interlocutory in nature and whether the revision petition against the order passed is maintainable or not, has been answered by Full Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as well as High Court of J&K, relied by the trial court in its order impugned dated 31.03.2017. 8. The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2016 titled "HDFC Securities Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported as AIR 2017 Supreme Court 61 held that though High Court has inherent jurisdiction but cannot quash the order passed by the trial court under Section 156 (3). Paragraph No. 24 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "24. It appears to us that the appellants approached the High Court even before the stage of issuance of process. In particular, the appellants challenged the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants after summarizing their arguments in the matter have emphasized also in the context of the fundamental rights of the appellants under the Constitution, that the order impugned has caused grave inequities to the appellants. In the circumstances, it was submitted that the order is illegal and is an abuse of the process of law. However, it appears to us that this order under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage, requires quashing of the investigation. We must keep in our mind that the stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate. Therefore, in our opinion, at this stage the High Court has correctly assessed the facts and the law in this situation and held that filing of the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., at this stage are nothing but premature. Therefore, in our opinion, at this stage the High Court has correctly assessed the facts and the law in this situation and held that filing of the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., at this stage are nothing but premature. Further, in our opinion, the High Court correctly came to the conclusion that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. should be sparingly used. In these circumstances, we do not find that there is any flaw in the impugned order or any illegality has been committed by the High Court in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants before the High Court. Accordingly, we affirm the order so passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions. The appeal is dismissed." 9. It would also be appropriate to reproduce paragraph No. 109 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5412 of 1990 titled "State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.", reported as 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 hereunder:- "109. It was again contended that mala fides are writ large on the extraordinary interest evinced by the police officers and the hasty direction given by the SP. Needless to say that the question of mala fide exercise of power will assume significance only if an authority acts for unauthorized purpose. The proper test to be applied in such a case is as to what is the dominant purpose for which the power is exercised. The principle of dominant purpose for which the power is exercised. The principle of dominant purpose is explained in the following decisions: (1) King v. Minister of Health; (2) Rex v. Brighton Corporation ex-parte Shoosmith; (3) Earl Fitzwilliam's Wentworth Estate Co. Ltd. v. Minister of Town and Country Planning and (4) P.V. Jagannath Rao v. State of Orissa." 10. Thus the inherent powers cannot, inter alia, be invoked in respect of any matter covered by a specific provision of the Code. Ltd. v. Minister of Town and Country Planning and (4) P.V. Jagannath Rao v. State of Orissa." 10. Thus the inherent powers cannot, inter alia, be invoked in respect of any matter covered by a specific provision of the Code. It can be exercised only where the High Court is satisfied either that an order passed under the Code would be rendered ineffective or that the process of any Court would be abused or that the ends of justice would not be secured and that the High Court can and must exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code. The powers under Section 561-A is not intended to scuttle justice at the threshold but to secure justice. In proceedings instituted on a complaint, exercise of inherent powers under this Section to quash the proceedings is called for, only in a case where the allegations leveled in a complaint, prima facie, do not disclose any offence. However, in the present case, learned Magistrate after going through the allegations leveled in the complaint, duly supported by an affidavit, prima facie found serious allegations seems to be made against the accused persons and observed proper investigation and accordingly Police authority, i.e., Senior Superintendent to Police, Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu, directed to register FIR in terms of Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. However, at this stage, the allegations made in the complaint, cannot be proved or disproved, the same can be done only after the proper investigation. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as High Courts, present petition filed under Section 561-A is not maintainable and same is accordingly dismissed along with connected MPs.