JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 196/2015 of Police Station, Doda lodged against them by respondent No.2 for the commission of offences under Sections 447, 427, 379 & 147 RPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ved Bhushan Gupta submits that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are involved in a civil litigation about land comprised in Khasra No. 1310. In that case a compromise was arrived at between the parties and compromise order/judgment was passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Doda on 27.10.2015. On the same day, respondent No.2 and some others, however, attacked the petitioners, Faqir Chand and Raju, when they were returning from the court premises. A complaint in this regard filed by the petitioner, Raju, is pending trial in the court of law. It is alleged that the FIR (supra) has been lodged as a counter blast to the complaint and is, therefore, liable to be quashed as investigation in the said FIR would amount to abuse of the process of law. 4. It may be stated, briefly, that under Section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. (sec. 482 of the Central Code) the High Court 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. Inherent jurisdiction can be invoked to seek quashing of an 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 the court or tends to cause miscarriage of justice or the quashing is otherwise required to secure the ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court though vast, by now is well defined and circumscribed by virtue of various authorities of the Supreme Court. (See R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 ). 5. In seeking quashment of the FIR, petitioners would expect this Court to record a finding that the FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to the complaint filed against respondent No.2 and others by petitioner, Raju, about two months prior to the incident alleged in the FIR. 5. In seeking quashment of the FIR, petitioners would expect this Court to record a finding that the FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to the complaint filed against respondent No.2 and others by petitioner, Raju, about two months prior to the incident alleged in the FIR. To record such a finding would be beyond the scope of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. The contents of the FIR on their plain reading do not make out a case for showing indulgence in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this court. 6. Viewed thus, this petition has no merit and is dismissed. 7. Interim direction issued on 29.12.2015 now stands vacated.