JUDGMENT : 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 561-A for quashing of FIR No. 25/2015 dated 21.03.2015 registered under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 420 of the RPC. 2. On a perusal of the FIR, it reveals that the same appears to have been filed based upon a complaint, wherein it was alleged that there had been fraud and cheating in regard to the appointments of ReT Teachers in the Education Zone, Mahore. It was alleged therein that the petitioners herein had been appointed as ReT Teachers on the basis of degrees obtained from the CMJ University, Meghalaya, which had been closed upon the directions issued by the Apex Court after declaring their degrees as invalid on account of irregularities and fraud. 3. It was further alleged that the Vice-Chancellor and others officers of the said University had also been arrested by the Meghalaya Police. It was further alleged that the petitioners had never visited Meghalaya and had yet obtained degrees from the said University fraudulently. 4. A preliminary enquiry appears to have been conducted by the Police, based upon the complaint, wherein it appears to have transpired that the degrees obtained by the petitioner were fake. 5. Objections have been filed, wherein it is stated that during the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Police and as per the statements made by none else than the petitioners’ themselves, it has transpired that the petitioner had never visited the Meghalaya University and they had obtained the certificates from one Romi Gupta, Computer Institute Operator in Udhampur town for Rs. 50,000/-. 6. The scope of powers exercisable under 561-A is no longer res-integra. The Apex Court in Sanjeet Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2009) 12 SCC 136 held that the parameters for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code (561-A of J&K CrPC) could be exercised either on proof of abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice as highlighted in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, namely: (a) 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; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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; (c) 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; (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) 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. 7. None of the above circumstances exist in the present case, which would warrant interference by exercise of provisions under section 561-A. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected MP.