JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C seeking quashment of FIR No.133/2007 dated 13.09.2007 registered at Police Station, Poonch under Section 407 Ranbir Penal code. 2. In the petition, it is stated that the petitioner-Unit is a Small Scale Industrial Unit duly registered with Industries and Commerce Department, which was established in the year 1996. The present petition is being filed by the former Managing Director of the petitioner Unit. The Unit has been established after securing a huge loan and is having such a huge liability which it has to liquidate after earning the profits from the business activity. In addition to above, with the commencement of the petitioner unit, employment to more than 50 persons has been provided. It is further stated that the petitioner company had participated in various number of process of tendering for wheat grinding contracts for various places. There were numerous litigations pending before this Court which have been filed by the petitioner company against the illegal action of the Consumers Affairs and Public Distribution Department and different directions have been passed by this Court in such writ petitions. One such writ petition was OWP No.799/2006 titled M/s New Jammu Flour Mills vs State of J&K and others. The Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department on the basis of such directions of the Court have allocated the wheat grinding contract to the petitioner for Poonch sector. It is further stated that the petitioner had supplied BPL/AAY to Poonch district strictly as per the norms and there were absolutely no infirmities whatsoever therein. It is also contended that respondent No.3 with ulterior motive and mala fide intention in order to give benefit to the rivals of the petitioner and also to create a room for taking action against the petitioner so as to ensure that the petitioner is not able to participate in the future tendering process, filed a complaint against the petitioner before respondent No.2-Police Station, Poonch and respondent No.2 on the basis of the said complaint, registered FIR No.133/2007 dated 13.09.2007 under Section 407 Ranbir Penal code against the petitioner. The allegations as contained in the said FIR are that 49 vehicles loaded with BPL Atta and AAY Atta which was dispatched to District Poonch by the petitioner between 13th September 2007 to 20th September 2007 has not been actually reached at the destination, as there was a doubt created as to whether these vehicles reached the destination or not. On the basis of information given by respondent No.3, an FIR was registered against the petitioner in the Police Station Poonch and so far no proceedings have been placed after registration against the FIR which is understandable also as the FIR has to be used as a ploy against the petitioner by the rivals of the petitioner. It is further contended that the FIR which has been lodged by respondent No.3 is false and frivolous and this fact is gatherable from the records also. Immediately after the registration of FIR the petitioner on 28th September 2007 issued a letter addressed to Assistant Director (Mills) Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department, Jammu who is the concerned officer having the relevant and necessary records of receipt etc of the dispatches about the certification that the vehicles which have been dispatched for District Poonch for Food and Supply Depot have reached there or not. In reply to the letter written by the petitioner, the Assistant Director (Mills), consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department Jammu vide his letter dated 4th October 2007 has clarified that after due enquiry and checking of the records it has been found that all dispatches made by the petitioner company have been properly executed and there is no lapse on its part. 3. It is apt to reproduce letter/communication dated 04.10.2007 addressed to The Joint Director CA&PD Department Jammu, which reads as under: To, The Joint Director, CA&PD Department, Jammu. No.1205/ADD Dated:04.10.2007 Sub: Supply of BPL/AAY to Poonch District w.e.f 13.09.2007 to 20.09.2007 by M/s New Jammu Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Jammu. With reference to M/s New Jammu Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.s letter dated 28.09.2007, I have thoroughly gone through the matter and have observed that the information given by this Asstt. Director CAPD Poonch vide his letter No.ADCAPC/P/07-08/c-l dated 21.09.2007 do not match with the actual facts in this matter. With reference to M/s New Jammu Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.s letter dated 28.09.2007, I have thoroughly gone through the matter and have observed that the information given by this Asstt. Director CAPD Poonch vide his letter No.ADCAPC/P/07-08/c-l dated 21.09.2007 do not match with the actual facts in this matter. After checking date wise record statement of Dispatches/Challans and acknowledgements pertaining to Poonch district Dispatches, it has been observed that there is no lapse on the part of M/s New Jammu Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., as they have executed all the dispatches in Poonch sector of BPL/AAY Atta up to 20.09.2007. As per Department orders, the transportation arrangements of Atta/Wheat is to be finalized by the Asstt. Director Trade and Stores through registered transport companies hence for any delay during transportation we cannot held responsible M/s New Jammu Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd for the same. Keeping in view the above in the light of facts all the 36 BPL and 13 AAY vehicles have been acknowledged by the concerned Storekeepers and Tehsil Supply Officers. Yours faithfully Sd/- Asstt. Director (Mills) CA&PD Department, Jammu. 4. In view of the position clarified herein above, it is apparently clear that the FIR against the petitioner has been lodged for ulterior motives and mala fide considerations and in order to victimize the petitioner. The FIR is, therefore, against the provisions of law and continuation of investigation is clearly against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harbans Lals case. It is also contended that the allegations as contained in the FIR fell flat on the ground that the issuance of communication by the Assistant Director (Mills) of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Department wherein the said officer after scrutinizing and checking of the relevant records have clarified that all the dispatches made by the petitioner company have reached at the proper destinations and there exists no lapse on the part of the petitioner. This communication of the Assistant Director (Mills) though provided to respondent No.2, but respondent No.2 has not so far closed the said FIR and is continuing with it without taking any effective proceedings in the said FIR. With the clarification given by the Assistant Director (Mills), the complaint filed by respondent No.3 becomes totally false frivolous and redundant, therefore, the FIR impugned is liable to be quashed. 5. With the clarification given by the Assistant Director (Mills), the complaint filed by respondent No.3 becomes totally false frivolous and redundant, therefore, the FIR impugned is liable to be quashed. 5. This Court vide order dated 18.03.2008, notice was issued and in the meantime, communication No.1205/ADM dated 04.10.2007 purported to have been written by Assistant Director (Mills) CA& PD Department to Joint Director, CA&PD Department, Jammu was stayed at present stage. Subsequently, the interim stay order was vacated vide order dated 20.03.2010. 6. Despite granting various opportunities to learned State counsel for filing objections, but he failed to file the same. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 8. The FIR in question reads as under;- On 6.9.2007 a written complaint was received from Directorate of consumer affairs and Public Distribution by SSP office Poonch stating that during the month of September 2007, 49 vehicles loaded with 77 quintals Atta each 36 carrying BPL Atta and 13 carrying AAY Atta were reported to have been dispatched to District Poonch by New Jammu Flour Mill between 13 and 20 September, 2007. As per the permit issued by Asstt. Director (Trade and Store) Jammu out of these 49 vehicles received only 3 vehicles, one by TSO Poonch and Two by TSO Mandi is reported to have acknowledged. A list comprising list of vehicle Nos. station to which they were dispatched from New Jammu Flour Mill quantity of Atta loaded and permit book No. and date is enclosed with this letter, photocopy of permit for these 49 is also enclosed along with receipt. Acknowledgement statement for three vehicles is also enclosed for your kind perusal in this context. It is requested that the receipt of all these 49 trucks in different stations of Poonch may be enquired into and action under law against the persons responsible for the non-receipt may be initiated. As a huge quantity of Atta meant for the people, District, Poonch falling under BPL/AAY category is at stake. Yours faithfully, self Director CA&PD Department, Jammu. Copy to (1) the Secretary to the Govt. CA&PD department, Jammu for information (2) Joint Director Adm. CA&PD Department for information and necessary action (3) Assistant T&S, CA&PD Department, Jammu for information and necessary action (4) Assistant Director Mills, CA&PD department, Jammu for information and necessary action (5) Assistant Director, Poonch for information and necessary action. Copy to (1) the Secretary to the Govt. CA&PD department, Jammu for information (2) Joint Director Adm. CA&PD Department for information and necessary action (3) Assistant T&S, CA&PD Department, Jammu for information and necessary action (4) Assistant Director Mills, CA&PD department, Jammu for information and necessary action (5) Assistant Director, Poonch for information and necessary action. All the officers of the Department will assist the Police Department for conducting the inquiry in the matter. 9. The law with regard to quashment of FIR is now well settled. FIR can only be quashed in order to prevent abuse of process of law or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 10. The expression ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of any court are intended to work out either when an innocent person is unjustifiable subjected to an undeserving prosecution or if an ex-facie all merited prosecution is throttled at the threshold without allowing the material in support of it. 11. This court while exercising the power under section 561-A Cr.P.C., court does not function as court of trial, appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised disparity, careful and with great caution. These powers cannot be used to stifle the legitimate prosecution. This is discretionary power vested in High Court to do substantial justice. High Court cannot examine the evidence as to whether charge for alleged offence is made put or not. This is prerogative of trial court where challan is produced. Where accused has opportunity to advance submission before trial court that material on record does not call for framing of charge then High court shall not exercise power under section 561-A Cr.P.C. 12. In present case allegation leveled against are serous as out of 49 vehicles loaded with 77 quintals Atta each 36 carrying BPL Atta and 13 carrying AAY Atta were reported to have been dispatched to District Poonch by New Jammu Flour Mill between 13 and 20 September, 2007, only 3 vehicles, one by TSO Poonch and two by TSO Mandi is reported to have acknowledged. So these allegations prima facie show criminal breach of trust by carrier as provided u/s 407 Ranbir Penal code by Petitioners firm, which is cognizable offence. 13. So these allegations prima facie show criminal breach of trust by carrier as provided u/s 407 Ranbir Penal code by Petitioners firm, which is cognizable offence. 13. Petitioner has relied upon certain letters/documents, which cannot be considered by this court in this petition; these letters/documents shall be considered by investigation officer, if investigation in the case is still pending. Otherwise petitioner can produce the same in his defense during trial. 14. All the pleas taken in the petition and that argued may be relevant for discharge of accused, but not for quashing the FIR , because all the pleas are pertaining to appreciation of facts. It is not case of petitioner that there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code .This petition is pending since 2008; and stay has already been vacated on 20.03.2010. 15. In view of above discussion, this petition is dismissed. Interim stay, if any, is vacated. However, petitioner is at liberty to take all pleas of facts or law before Court below at the time of framing of charge.