JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of FIR No. 63/2015 dated 11.03.2015 registered at Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 307, 427, 436, 511 RPC read with Section 3/25 Arms Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners are residents of Karyani Talab, Narwal Bala, Jammu. It is contended that petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are agriculturists whereas remaining petitioners are contractor and businessmen by profession. It is further contended that petitioner No.2 along with one Barkat Ali is in possession of land falling in Khasra No. 194 situated at Karyani Talab, Narwal Bala, Jammu. One Mohd. Yousuf, who is infamous criminal, land grabber and history-sheeter, has been making aborting attempts to encroach upon the piece of land which is in possession of petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali. Said Mohd. Yousuf is also involved in a criminal case FIR No. 84/2008 dated 30.04.2008 under Sections 376, 341, 34 RPC registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort (Trikuta Nagar), Jammu. Mohd. Yousuf in order to illegally encroach upon the land of the petitioner No.2 used to unlawfully park his vehicles in the said land. The petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali have already filed a complaint which is pending consideration before the District Magistrate, Jammu. It is further contended that since afore-named criminal was illegally and unlawfully making attempts to encroach upon the land of the petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali, therefore, the petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali, therefore, the petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali brought the matter to the notice of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jammu (South) Gangyal, Jammu. The SDM, Jammu (South) visited the spot to enquire about the status and possession of land over Khasra No. 194. During the course of enuqry held by the SDM, Jammu (South) on spot, besides statements of the petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali, the statements of the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 to 6 were also recorded and after going through the revenue records, it was found by SDM, Jammu that land in question is in possession of Petitioner No.2 and Barkat Ali and the said land is required to be kept free from all encumbrances till the final outcome of the complaint filed before the court of Learned District Magistrate, Jammu. The SDM Jammu also found that Mohd. The SDM Jammu also found that Mohd. Yousuf used to park his vehicles on the land which is against the ethics of a transporter having the permit for transportation/carriage of goods. It is averred that the SDM, Jammu after holding thorough enquiry into the matter passed Order No. 17 of SDM/JMU-S of 2015 dated 10.03.2015 whereby SHO, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu has been directed to seize those vehicles i.e. two tankers, tippers, JCB and a tractor trolley seen on the spot and park them outside that piece of land or in Police Station. It is stated that on coming to know about the passing of the aforesaid order, Mohd. Yousuf, who has a close nexus and influence in the police hierarchy, in order to retaliate against the order passed by the SDM South, Jammu against him and seizure of his vehicles, pressurised the respondent No.2 and succeeded in getting a false and frivolous FIR registered against the petitioners herein. The respondent No.2 by succumbing to the pressure and influence yielded by Mohd. Yousuf has registered FIR No. 63/2015 under Sections 307, 427, 436, 511 RPC read with section 3/25 Arms Act against the petitioners. It is further stated that the allegations as alleged in the said FIR are that the petitioners are inimical to Mohd. Yousuf and litigation with respect to land is going on between them. It is further stated that on the intervening night of 10/11th March, 2015 at about 1.00 a.m the complaint is alleged to have heard gun shots which were fired by some unknown persons and tractor trolley was also tried to be set ablaze by few persons whose identity is alleged to have not known to the petitioners. It is further stated that the allegations against the petitioners in the said FIR are that they are inimical to the complainant. It is stated that the petitioners are the persons except petitioner No.7, who have given statements before the SDM South, Jammu during the enquiry conducted by him, therefore, they have been purposely targeted by the complainant as they have given statements against the complainant. 3. Petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned FIR No. 63/2015 and the investigation/proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the said FIR by the respondent No.2, therefore, wish to challenge the same on the following grounds. 3. Petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned FIR No. 63/2015 and the investigation/proceedings initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the said FIR by the respondent No.2, therefore, wish to challenge the same on the following grounds. It is contended that the impugned FIR is totally illegal and has been registered by the respondent No.2 by succumbing to the pressure yielded by the complainant. It is stated that the impugned FIR has been registered as a retaliatory measure on the pressure and influence yielded by the complainant. It is submitted that as the complainant Mohd. Yousuf was making attempts to illegally encroach upon the land of the petitioner No.2 when the SDM South, Jammu carried out enquiry on spot, the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 to 6 stood as witnesses in support of the petitioner No.2. The SDM South, Jammu passed an order directing seizure of the vehicles of the complainant on 10.03.2015, the complainant on 11.03.2015 i.e. just one day after the passing or order by the SDM South, Jammu, manoeuvred to get the impugned FIR containing a story, which even does not remotely connect the petitioners with the commission of offences as have been alleged against the petitioners. It is stated that as per the impugned FIR itself, the petitioners are not involved in any offence much less the offences alleged against them in the impugned FIR. The complainant has himself not attributed any offence as against the petitioners except the fact that the complainant has rivalry with the petitioners. It is averred that no person including the complainant in the aforesaid alleged incident was injured nor any person suffered any injury in the said incident which is quite apparent from the perusal of the impugned FIR. That the impugned FIR is a result of wreck-vengeance with the complainant has entertained against the petitioners inasmuch as, on the complaint filed by the petitioner No.2 and one Barkat Ali before the District Magistrate, Jammu, SDM Sought Jammu. It is stated that under the garb of the impugned FIR, the petitioners are being subjected to harassment and victimization by the police notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have not committed any offence much less the offences as alleged against them. 4. Per contra, State-respondents have filed the objections/status report. It is contended by the respondents that on 11.03.2015 complainant, namely, Mohd. 4. Per contra, State-respondents have filed the objections/status report. It is contended by the respondents that on 11.03.2015 complainant, namely, Mohd. Yousif @ Shama S/o Fakkar Din R/o Karyani Talab Narwal, Jammu lodged a written report that the complainant is residing at Karyani Talab Narwal, Jammu and is the owner of another house located at Abu Baker Colony Narwal Bala, Jammu where his younger brother namely Mohd. Saleem and his driver are putting up. There is a land dispute between the complainant and non-complainant namely Mehraj Din. Hukam Din Ss/of Noor Ahmed, Saleem Ahmed, Majeed Ahmed Ss/o Ghulam Hussain, Mohd. Sultan S/o Kher Din, Jameel S/o Saif Din all R/o Narwal Bala, Jammu. The non-complainants were extending threats to the complainant for dire consequences. On 11.03.2015 some unknown person(s) with intention to kill his brother/driver made murderous attack upon his brother/driver with some fire arms. As a result of which the window panes of house/tanker were broken and also burn the tyres of tractor trolley. It is stated that some local people gathered on spot the accused fled from the spot. He is suspicion that above mentioned persons are involved in the case etc. ON this case FIR No. 63/2015 u/s 307/436/511/427 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act stands registered at Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu and the investigation of the case was entrusted to SI Nayat Ali I/C Police Post Narwal Bala, Jammu. It is further stated that during the course of investigation I/O visited the spot prepared the site plan, recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C also got conducted photography of the Scene of occurrence, seized fired bullet, piece of gralles from the spot. The seized exhibits were sent to FSL, Jammu for expert opinion. In preliminary objections, it is stated that the present petition is misconceived inasmuch as the same is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed out rightly. That no legal, fundamental and/or statutory rights of the petitioners have been violated. On this count, the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners has reiterated the grounds taken in memo of petition, whereas counsel for respondent has reiterated the stand taken in the objections. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and gone though the law of the subject. 7. On this count, the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners has reiterated the grounds taken in memo of petition, whereas counsel for respondent has reiterated the stand taken in the objections. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and gone though the law of the subject. 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. (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. 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. 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 realised 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 the considered opinion that no case for quashing of FIR has been made out. Firstly, perusal of FIR No.63/2015 under Sections 307, 427, 436, 511 RPC read with Section 3/25 Arms Act, it is evident that cognizable offences for lodging of FIR has been made out against the petitioners which require to be investigated. It is not a case that allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is not a case that allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is also not a case that there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the law. 9. The facts narrated in this petition cannot be appreciated in detail for inferring that FIR is incorrect and does not require investigation. The contents of FIR are only allegations and allegations can be rebutted by accused by producing documentary or oral evidence. Purpose of investigation is to inquire about truthfulness of allegations leveled against alleged accused person(s); it is not duty of I/O to collect evidence only against alleged accused; but accused has also right to produce evidence in order to prove his innocence before I.O. If after completing the investigation, it comes that allegations leveled are false, then accused can be given benefit under section 169 Cr.P.C. No rarest of rare case has been made out for exercising power under section 561 –A Cr.P.C. 10. Hence this petition is dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to place all documentary or oral evidence before I/O.