JUDGMENT : 1. In this petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.91 of 2012 under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506/34 RPC, registered at Police Station, Satwari on a written report lodged by one Lachman Singh S/O Late Sh. Bir Chand. It was reported by the informant, Lachman Singh, that on 27-04-2012, the petitioners trespassed into his house at 9 P.M and asked him to withdraw the complaint filed against them by him. On his refusal to do so, the petitioners gave him beating and, used filthy language against him. On his raising alarm two persons came on spot and rescued him from the petitioners. 2. Petitioners seek quashing of aforesaid FIR on the ground that there is a dispute between them and the informant in regard to a lane about which the informant had filed a suit which, however, was dismissed on 8-9-2012. They have been falsely implicated by the informant so as to pressurize them to leave open some portion of their land towards the lane. On 22-01-2012, the informant along with 5 others had trespassed into the house of petitioner No.1 and had assaulted him, about which FIR No.20 of 2012 was registered at Police Station, Satwari. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the informant maliciously and with an ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance against the petitioners. 3. 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 Harana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 . 4. 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 Harana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 . 4. The impugned FIR on a plain reading discloses commission of cognizable offences, that is, house trespass and assault by the petitioners and it cannot be said that no prima facie case for investigation is disclosed. A fact situation in which parties are involved in civil dispute may give rise to lodging of false complaints against each other but may also lead to one party assaulting the other. To ascertain reality necessitates investigation and such investigation cannot be truncated at its inception on the basis of contention that the case is false or filed with intention of wrecking vengeance. 5. No case for showing indulgence in exercise of inherent powers under section 561-A Cr.P.C, is made out and the petition is, therefore, dismissed along with connected MP. Interim direction dated 30.08.2013 issued by this court shall stand vacated.