JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of FIR No. 173/2013 dated 22.05.2013 registered at Police Station, Domana, Jammu for commission of offence under Sections 452/147/427/506 RPC. 2. The brief facts of the case on hand are that the respondent No.2, namely, Shadi Lal Koul, is the estranged husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2. It is alleged that respondent No.2 has kept a mistress and because of the commanding influence of the said mistress the respondent No.2 has deserted the petitioners Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended by petitioner No.1 that because of most unreasonable and unethical attitude and activities of respondent No.2, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are involved in matrimonial dispute with respondent No.2 and each are also getting the monthly maintenance of Rs.4500/-. It is also contended that respondent No.2 with ulterior motive to veil his relations with a mistress, who is living in the same house along with him often objects to the entry of the petitioners in the house situated at Durga Nagar, Jammu. It is further contended that the said house is ancestral property of petitioner No.2 as also respondent No.2 (father). The said house and the land over which the house has been constructed were from the sale proceeds of the ancestral property. Therefore, the present property has also assumed the character of ancestral property of which the petitioner No.2 and the respondent No2 are the coparceners. It is further contended that on 20th May, 2013 in the evening, the petitioner No.2 asked his father to give him his share in the house so that he along with his mother are in a position to live in the separate share. The respondent No.2 firstly reacted sharply and even tried to attack the petitioner No.2 with aid and abetment of his mistress, but immediately after apprehending the consequences changed his tone and asked petitioner No2 to call his mother and he will settle the dispute once for all. After that petitioner No.2 gave a ring to his mother and asked her to reach at Durga Nagar, who after some time along with the petitioner No.3 reached there. The moment they reached, the respondent No.2 lost his temper and started abusing and beating the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. After that petitioner No.2 gave a ring to his mother and asked her to reach at Durga Nagar, who after some time along with the petitioner No.3 reached there. The moment they reached, the respondent No.2 lost his temper and started abusing and beating the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2. Due to the barbaric act of respondent No.2, some relatives and the family friends of the petitioners suggested approaching the State Women Commission but in the larger interest of the family, petitioners refrained to do so. It is also contended by the petitioners that when respondent No.2 found that the petitioners have neither approached the police nor any other forum, he by hobnobbing with police on concocted facts succeeded in getting the FIR registered against the petitioners and proforma respondent Nos. 3 to 5, which prompting the petitioners to file the instant petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the State. 4. The contents of FIR read as under:- A copy of Report No.20 dated 22.05.2013 of Roznamacha of P/P Chinore was produced by Constable namely Jameel Ahmed in police station Domana for lodging of FIR. As per Report, one person namely Shadi Lal Koul S/o Madhu Koul R/o House no.172, Sector-D, Durga Nagar, Jammu, lodged a written complaint in English before the In-charge Police Post Chinore Jammu against 1. Raj Dulari D/o Dina Nath W/o residing at present Janipur Jammu 2.Vishal Koul 3. Sarla Raina W/o Chand Ji Bhat, residing at present Janipur Jammu 4. Bittu Ji S/o Dina Nath 5. Pintu Ji S/o Nand Lal and 6. Avtar Krishan S/o Bani Lal R/o Barnai, Jammu. In the complainant it has been stated that complainant is a Government employee and there was a Court case in between complainant and accused No.1. Complainant has given divorce to accused No.1 and is giving maintenance to accused No.1 and accused No.2 since 1993. Complainant is providing Rs.9000/- per month as maintenance, accused No.1 & 2 are residing separately from the complainant since 20 years. Complainant has been transferred recently from Ladakh to Jammu and is residing in House No.172, Sector-D, Durga Nagar, Jammu. On 20.05.2013, at about 5.30 in the evening, accused persons entered into the house forcibly and used unparliamentarily language. The Complainant was beaten and was threatened that they will kill him. Complainant has been transferred recently from Ladakh to Jammu and is residing in House No.172, Sector-D, Durga Nagar, Jammu. On 20.05.2013, at about 5.30 in the evening, accused persons entered into the house forcibly and used unparliamentarily language. The Complainant was beaten and was threatened that they will kill him. The accused persons also damaged the property as well as articles lying in the house. On seeing this, wife of complainant became unconscious. The Complainant made a hue and cry and on hearing the noise, some neighbors came on spot, who took the accused persons from there. He has prayed that strict legal action may be taken against the accused persons. Due to some reasons, the Complainant is late in filing the complaint. Dated 22.05.2013. Sd/- Shadi Lal On the basis of above said complaint, FIR no. 173/2013 offences under Section 147/427/452/506 RPC was registered. 5. Despite the fact that this petition is pending since 2013, neither state nor private respondents have filed objections. Even status report of FIR has not been filed. 6. I have considered the law on the subjects. 7. In AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 37 in case titled State of Telangana v Habib Adulla, it is held as under :- “11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that 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 cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:- “(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 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 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 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.” It is worthy to note that the Court has clarified that the said parameters or guidelines are not exhaustive but only illustrative. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and situations where court’s inherent power can be exercised. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and situations where court’s inherent power can be exercised. 12. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 13. In this regard, it would be seemly to reproduce a passage from Kurukshetra University (supra) wherein Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) opined thus:- “2. It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a first information report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the FIR. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.” 14. We have referred to the said decisions only to stress upon the issue, how the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in a proceeding relating to quashment of FIR can be justified. We repeat even at the cost of repetition that the said power has to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The surprise that was expressed almost four decades ago in Kurukshetra University’s case compels us to observe that we are also surprised by the impugned order.” 8. Keeping in view above law into consideration, I am of considered opinion that FIR has been lodged with mala fide and has been 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. Keeping in view above law into consideration, I am of considered opinion that FIR has been lodged with mala fide and has been 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. Because, complainant is husband and father of petitioners no.1 and 2 respectively. If they had gone to the house of their husband or father, no case of house trespass u/s 452 RPC is made put. It is also a fact that litigation between parties are pending. 9. Even otherwise a vague and general types of allegations have been leveled. Perusal of FIR reveals that complainant has stated that his wife became unconscious, but no name of wife has been mentioned; for attracting section 427 RPC, there should be specific allegation that damages to the amount of Rs.50/- onwards is suffered; but perusal of FIR would reveals that it has been stated that the accused persons also damaged the property as well as articles lying in the house, therefore no detail of articles have been mentioned. So perusal FIR would reveals that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offences; and allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable and so there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons. It has been lodged only to settle personal vengeance. Hence, a case for exercising the power vested to this court u/s 561-A Cr.P.C has been made. 10. Hence FIR No. 173/2013 dated 22.05.2013 registered at Police Station, Domana, Jammu for commission of offence under Sections 452/147/427/506 RPC is quashed as it is an abuse of process of law. This petition is, thus, allowed.