JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioners seek setting aside of order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the application filed by the petitioners for dropping of proceedings, dismissal of complaint and their discharge, came to be dismissed. 2. The main facts emanating from the case set up by the petitioners are that the complainant-respondent herein, wife of a retired Senior Superintendent of Police, has been harassing the petitioners for the last several years by filing civil and criminal cases repeatedly for one alleged cause of action, either deliberately or because of some misconception about the location of her plot of land which perhaps has been grabbed by some land grabbers. It is contended that a civil suit was filed against petitioner No.1 pertaining to her alleged plot of land which perhaps measuring 1 Kanal comprising Khasra No.12 Greater Kailash, Jammu on 12.03.2017, which suit is pending before the learned District Judge, Jammu. The complainant-respondent has also filed a FIR No.16/2007 before Police Station Gangyal, Jammu pertaining to same plot and after investigation in the matter, police concerned found that petitioner No.2 is the owner of said plot of land falling in Khasra No.11, Greater Kailash, Jammu which she had purchased vide sale deed dated 01.06.1996 and it was a different piece of land which was claimed by the respondent as her plot. It is also contended that on the basis of official record and statement of witnesses, the case was closed as not proved, closure report in this regard was also presented by the police concerned. The respondent had never challenged the closure report filed by the police. Thereafter, on the same cause of action, respondent filed a complaint before Crime Branch Jammu which was also investigated and closed as not proved and respondent had also not challenge it. This fact has been admitted by the respondent in the complaint filed by her which is pending before the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, (Forest Magistrate), Jammu. Thereafter, on the same cause of action, respondent filed a complaint before Crime Branch Jammu which was also investigated and closed as not proved and respondent had also not challenge it. This fact has been admitted by the respondent in the complaint filed by her which is pending before the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, (Forest Magistrate), Jammu. It is also contended that on the same facts, respondent again filed a complaint and sought direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to register case under Section 447 against the petitioners and after reinvestigation, no FIR was registered, thereafter respondent filed a contempt petition and concerned police filed a status report contending therein that petitioner No.2 is the owner of land measuring 2 Kanals falling under Khasra No.11 which plot is different and respondent’s plot falls under Khasra No.12. It is further contended that on cognizance taken by the Court issued process against the petitioners and are being prosecuted when there is no offence and fault of theirs. It is also contended that issuance of process is an abuse of the process of law and the case needs to be dismissed. Petitioners have also moved application for their discharge but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2014. It is petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed and being forced to face trial for an alleged offence which was never committed by them and their rights are being violated, therefore, petitioners seek quashment of criminal proceedings pending against them in Criminal Complaint titled “Kanta Devi Vs. Rajinder Singh”, pending before the Court of learned Additional Munsiff (Forest Magistrate), Jammu. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record also. 4. From the perusal of file it reveals that respondent power of attorney holder of her husband with regard to land measuring 1 kanal under kh. no. 12 falling in village chowadi filed a criminal complaint u/s 447 RPC ; in the complainant it has been stated that complainant purchased this land from one Sansar chand by virtue of sale deed executed on 23.2.2000 and registered on 18.5.2000; that previous owner has already raised the plinth for boundary wall; that accused no.2 has purchased 2 k of land under kh.no. 11 situated a chowadi vide sale deed dated 1.6.1996; that accused no.2 Sushma Devi has sold 1k15m land from her land to Ab. 11 situated a chowadi vide sale deed dated 1.6.1996; that accused no.2 Sushma Devi has sold 1k15m land from her land to Ab. Majid Matto vide sale deed dated 4.8.1998. The said vendee sold this land to Vipin and Sanjay; who further sold the same to Mohinder ; this land is nearby the land of complainant ; that accused started interfering in the land and so a case was lodged in Crime Branch; but it was closed; One FIR no. 16/2007 was also lodged in police station Gangyal; and that was also closed; than her husband again moved a complaint before magistrate for registration of FIR under the purview of 156(3) Cr.P.C; but no FIR was registered; in status report it was stated by police that accused ate in possession of land; that Depuy commissioner has reported that accused has no land in kh.no.11 situated at Chowadi. In this way accused has encroached upon the land. 5. Court below after recording the statement of complainant and witness took cognizance u/s 447 RPC. 6. Law with regard to inherent power of High court has now been well settled. In AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 37 in case titled State of Telangana v Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors., 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, Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan 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. 7. As per above law, a complaint is liable to be quashed, if it does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive; if the allegations set out in complaint do not constitute offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, then it can be quashed. 8. In para no.7 of complaint a general allegation has been leveled that from 2007, the accused started interfering into peaceful possession of the complainant over the plot and complainant filed a complaint before crime branch. These are vague and general type of allegations; further complainant has filed a civil suit prior to filing of this complaint before 2nd additional Munsiff; but in complaint, there is no such mentions; so complainant has concealed this material fact with regard to pendency civil suit. Further, there are photocopies of an application and order dated 20.12.2009 passed by 2nd Additional Munsiff Jammu, in an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. filed in civil suit by complainant against defendant/accused, wherein plaintiff has pleaded that she has been dispossessed from land in dispute in March 2007, but no date has been mentioned of dispossession; so even if it is considered as month and year of criminal trespass, the cognizance is time barred. Because offence u/s 447 RPC carries punishment up to three months and complaint has been filed on 10.12.2012, the period of limitation in terms of Section 538-B Cr.P.C. is one year. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, the allegations in the complaint do not constitute a cognizable. This criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and to settle the civil dispute. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, the allegations in the complaint do not constitute a cognizable. This criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and to settle the civil dispute. This petition is accordingly accepted and complaint pending before Court below and proceedings initiated thereafter are quashed. Record of Court below is sent back along with this order. 10. Disposed of in the afore said terms.