ORDER : The petitioner herein, who is arraigned as the sole accused in Crime No. 1231/2012 of Kazhakkuttam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offence punishable under Section 55(h ) of the Abkari Act has approached this Court with this petition seeking exercise of the inherent power conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR registered against him. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 3. The relevant facts that emerge from the record in nutshell are as follows: The petitioner is the Director of an event management by name 'Black Magic Productions Pvt. Ltd'. The concern is mainly engaged with the business of conducting mega stage shows, event management, and other stage shows organized by various parties including the Government Departments. The petitioner had agreed to conduct a mega event night by name' Dreams 2013' at Al Saj Convention Centre, Kazhakuttam from 7 p.m. on 31st December 2013. Advertisements were published and tickets were sold for conducting the event. But on 19.12.2016 a crime was registered against this petitioner on a complaint by one Abdul Sathar alleging that tickets were sold advertising that there will be sale of liquor in the music event at Al-Saj Convention Centre. Thus crime was registered against him under section 55(h) of the Abkari Act. 4. The definite contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the advertisement was only to conduct a mega event in the night of 31st December 2012 and the programme scheduled was only variety entertainments viz mimicry, ganamela etc. proposed to be performed by various celebrities. There was absolutely no indication in the advertisement or in the tickets sold by him that liquor will be available/sold in the venue or there will be supply of liquor free of cost during the event. So also no liquor was stored for sale and hence no offence has been committed by him so as to register a crime and to investigate it. It is further contended by him that with an intention to harass him such a case had been registered resulting cancellation of the programme and he had to refund the amount collected by him as the value of the tickets for the event causing huge financial loss. It is further contended by him that with an intention to harass him such a case had been registered resulting cancellation of the programme and he had to refund the amount collected by him as the value of the tickets for the event causing huge financial loss. As no offence to attract section 55(h) of the Abkari Act had been committed by him, the FIR registered against him is only an abuse of process of law and, therefore, liable to be quashed, is the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application and contended that in all DJ parties liquor will be supplied and the advertisement published by the petitioner would indicate that there will be supply of liquor either for sale or free of cost and hence all the essential and necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under section 55 (h)of the Abkari Act are there and hence the FIR registered against him is not liable to be quashed and in fact the investigation has to be proceeded with by setting aside the order of stay passed against the prosecution and he has to face the trial. 6. The legal position is well settled that the inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC; in fact the distinct and different statutory power has to be exercised judiciously and sparingly with caution and only when the court is satisfied and fully convinced, taking into consideration of the special facts that 'no useful purpose' will be served if the prosecution continue with the investigation, quash the proceeding at the initial stage. This power of the court has to be exercised with caution to secure the ends justice as well to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the powers vested on the court under this provision no doubt a minimum scrutiny is not sufficient but all the glaring facts and circumstances involved at that stage have to be scanned meticulously with caution and only if it is fully convinced that no prima facie case is made out and extreme injustice would be caused to the party by not quashing the case initiated by the police, the said power can be exercised. A galaxy of decision are there on this point and referring to those various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterating the position of law with regard to the scope and power of Section 482 Cr.P.C., a Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [ 2006 (1)KLT 552 ] held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the court possessed before the enactment of this Code. It envisages these circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised namely; “(a) to give effect to an order passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure or, (b) to prevent abuse of process of any court or (c) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Such powers may have to be exercised in an appropriate case to render justice even beyond the law.” 7. In Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd. [ (2008) 13 SCC 678 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations regarding the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. “The parametres of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is now well settled. Although it is of wide amplitude, a great deal of caution is also required in its exercise. What is required is application of the well-known legal principles involved in the matter.” Bearing in mind the above factors it is necessary to verify whether an offence under section 55(h) of the Abkari Act is attracted in the present case. In this regard it is useful to advert to the section which reads as follows: “55. For illegal import, etc.-Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act (a) to (g) xxxxxxxx (h) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale. In this regard it is useful to advert to the section which reads as follows: “55. For illegal import, etc.-Whoever in contravention of this Act or of any rule or order made under this Act (a) to (g) xxxxxxxx (h) bottles any liquor for purposes of sale. [(i) [sells or stores for sale liquor] or any intoxicating drug,] [shall, be punishable] [(1) for any offence, other than an offence falling clause (d) or clause (e), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [ten years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees one lakh, and] (2) for an offence falling under clause (d) or clause (e), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section and section 64A, “intoxicating drug” means any intoxicating substance, other than a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance regulated by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act 61 of 1985, which the Government may by notification declare to be an intoxicating drug.” 8. The meaning of word Bottle is defined in Abkari Act in Section 3 (19A) as ; ''Bottle'' means to transfer liquor from a cask or other vessel to bottles, jar, flask or similar receptacle for the purpose of sale, whether any process of manufacture be employed or not, and includes rebottling” 9. On a plain reading of the above sections, it is discernible that an offence under Section 55 (h)is attracted when one transfer liquor from a cask or vessel or similar receptacle for the purpose of sale. Here prima facie there is no case that this petitioner who is engaged with event management business transferred liquor in contravention of the provisions of the Abkari Act for sale, to the proposed venue where the event was arranged to be conducted on the new year eve of 2013. Therefore, prima facie no offence under Section 55 (h) of the Act is attracted or made out. 10. In fact the accusation against the petitioner is that he advertised by printing in the notice as well in the tickets for the programme that the music entertainment will have an additional attraction of dinner with liquor. Therefore, prima facie no offence under Section 55 (h) of the Act is attracted or made out. 10. In fact the accusation against the petitioner is that he advertised by printing in the notice as well in the tickets for the programme that the music entertainment will have an additional attraction of dinner with liquor. As the challenge is on the legality of registration of the crime against the petitioner under the Abkari Act on the allegation that he made illegal advertisement offering liquor in the music night, the Section attracted could only be Section 55 H of the Act, which reads as follows: “55H. Penalty for unlawful advertisement.-Whoever prints, publishes or gives any advertisement soliciting use of or offering any liquor or intoxicating drug shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees or with both: Provided that, this section shall not apply to price list for display at the points of sale for consumer information.” 11. Section 55H is attracted when one prints or publishes or gives any advertisement soliciting use of or offer of liquor or any intoxicating drug. It is also significant to note that the punishments prescribed for 55 h and 55 H are also different. For offence under Section 55h, the punishment prescribed is as follows : “(1) for any offence other than an offence falling clause (d) or clause (e), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to [ten years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees one lakh]” and (2) for an offence falling under clause (d) or clause (e), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.” But for the offence under Section 55 H of the Act, the punishment is imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees or with both. The above referred two offences are distinct and different. 12. In the instant case the allegation is that an advertisement was made regarding the conduct of a music night on the eve of 31st December 2012 to welcome the new year (2013). The above referred two offences are distinct and different. 12. In the instant case the allegation is that an advertisement was made regarding the conduct of a music night on the eve of 31st December 2012 to welcome the new year (2013). The essential ingredient to attract an offence under this section is illegal advertisement by printing or publishing with offer of liquor or intoxicating drug. The petitioner has no case that he is holding any licence or permit to conduct sale of liquor. So prima facie any such advertisement by him could only be illegal. It is pertinent to note that Annexure-B is the notice/advertisement published by the petitioner advertising the conduct of the event/party night proposed to be held on 31st December at 7 p.m. under the name “Dreams Party Night 2013”. It is also discernible from this notice that this music night with dinner was arranged to welcome 2013. Of course, in the advertisement it could be seen that only buffet dinner is arranged along with the music night with surprise gifts, shopping cards etc. Of-course the notice or advertisement produced before this Court by the petitioner does not refer about supply of liquor or intoxicating drug in the music night powered by Blackmagic of which the petitioner is the Director of the concern. But CD file produced by the investigating agency would indicate that the advertisement effected by him was with specific offer to supply liquor in the music concert. Prima facie, it appears from the CD file that the flux exhibited advertising the conduct of music night was with the offer of liquor and dinner. Like wise the ticket seized by the police indicate about such an offer. 13. When a complaint is received or any information is received it is the mandate of the police to investigate and unearth the facts involved to verify whether it indicates culpability of the accused. The prime duty of the police is to prevent commission of crime. Here the investigation is only in the initial stage and it has to be proceeded to secure the ends of justice. At this juncture, it is not possible to curtail the solemn duty of the investigating agency to collect reliable evidence to establish the case and at this stage this Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. mechanically. Here the investigation is only in the initial stage and it has to be proceeded to secure the ends of justice. At this juncture, it is not possible to curtail the solemn duty of the investigating agency to collect reliable evidence to establish the case and at this stage this Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. mechanically. From the materials available as such it is not possible to conclude that prima facie nothing is discernible from the advertisement or from the other circumstances involved that no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the prosecution to continue with its duty. Like that the offence alleged can not be termed as not grievous in nature and one that too not causing adverse social impact on society. In fact it cannot be termed as a mere music entertainment. Alcholism and usage of any narcotic drugs, are of very serious concern and anxiety of all the right thinking persons especially when youngsters are very much attracted to such music Nights and parties. It is true that the event was to be performed by celebrities/well known persons who are in the field and only if materials are available to the effect that such an offence will be committed, if not intervened, the respondent is entitled to register a case against the petitioner. If only materials are prima facie available to constitute an offence under section 55(H), a case can be registered apprehending use of liquor in violation of the provisions of the Abkari Act. The plea of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated by the police, cannot be accepted at this stage on the basis of the nature of allegation levelled against him. In fact due to the intervention of the respondent, the music event was not conducted by the petitioner and he had to return the money collected by him by way of sale of tickets for the event. 14. In fact due to the intervention of the respondent, the music event was not conducted by the petitioner and he had to return the money collected by him by way of sale of tickets for the event. 14. When materials are prima facie available so as to proceed with the investigation, no doubt the registration of an FIR cannot be considered as illegal in the eye of law, and at this stage, it is not possible to conclude that if investigation is proceeded with, it would result in abuse of process of law and hence FIR is liable to be quashed, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred on this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 15. Accordingly, I find that this application to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner by the respondent/Kazhakkuttam Police, is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Crl. M.C is hereby dismissed.