JUDGMENT : 1. This is a petition under Section 561-A Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 (for short, the Code) whereby petitioner (accused) invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash First Information Report (FIR) No. 21/2018 dated 18.07.2018 registered against him with Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu (VOJ) for offence under Section 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 (for short, the Act). 2. Heard Mr. B.S. Salathia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Dy. A.G, appearing on behalf of the State. 3. The impugned F.I.R reveals that the petitioner, while posted as the Incharge Tehsil Supply Officer (TSO) Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution, Rajouri and Kalakote, received an amount of Rs.81, 20,914 from the Assistant Director, CAPD Department, Rajouri. This amount was meant for payment to the private ration dealers on account of handling charges payable to them. The amount was received by the petitioner through two official cheques, one bearing No. 132004 dated 03.06.2015 valuing Rs.39, 56,094 and the other bearing No. 132014 dated 10.06.2015 valuing Rs. 41, 64,820. The VOJ received a complaint from one Mohd. Zaffar that the petitioner has disbursed less amount to the private dealers and has wrongly withdrawn the remaining amount from the Treasury. The VOJ took up verification on this complaint. The verification conducted in respect of four ration dealers revealed that amount to the tune of Rs. 2, 92,600 was misappropriated by the petitioner. It was found that the petitioner in misuse of his official position reflected payment of the whole amount to a dealer in the office record but credited lesser amount to his Bank Account and thereby misappropriated the remaining amount. 4. Quashing of the FIR is sought primarily on the ground that the petitioner has been falsely implicated inasmuch as neither any misappropriation of the Government money has taken place nor the allegations in the impugned FIR on their plain reading constitute commission of any offence. It is contended also that the registration of the FIR is actuated by malice on the part of the VOJ as they earlier failed to find any incriminating material against the petitioner in verification No. 54/2015 and verification No. 18/2018 commenced against him. 5. In support of the plea that no misappropriation has taken place, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. It is contended also that the registration of the FIR is actuated by malice on the part of the VOJ as they earlier failed to find any incriminating material against the petitioner in verification No. 54/2015 and verification No. 18/2018 commenced against him. 5. In support of the plea that no misappropriation has taken place, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Salathia, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, produced two sets of papers (photo copies), one is headed as “cash book” and the other is a statement showing “payment made to the private dealers by TSO, Rajouri”, bearing also the certificate scribed by the TSO, Rajouri that the entire amount of Rs. 81, 20,914 has been paid to the dealers of Rajouri. Learned counsel sought to explain that the “cash book” shows the amount payable to respective dealers and the statement of payments indicates the payment received by each dealer and shows that whatever amount was due to a dealer was paid to him against the receipt issued by him. Learned counsel submitted that the whole amount of Rs. 81, 20,914 was duly distributed by the petitioner against proper receipt obtained in the last column of the aforementioned statement so the allegation of misappropriating any amount is totally misconceived. That no misappropriation has taken place is evident from the fact that none of the dealers who received the payment have come forward to lodge any complaint against the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted further that earlier the VOJ has made an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner in aforementioned two verifications but after failing in their attempt, VOJ has registered baseless FIR against him by securing a complaint from a person who has no role in the whole affair nor has been deprived of any benefit. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that registration of FIR against the petitioner is misuse of their authority by the VOJ and abuse of process of law and that no prima facie case of misappropriation or misuse of official position by the petitioner is made out. Learned counsel cited five authorities, namely, P. Sirajuddin etc. v. State of Madras etc. AIR 1971 SC 520 , Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup and ors. (1974) 1 SCC 103 , State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561 , M/s Rourkela Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar Goyal, 1993 CRL. Learned counsel cited five authorities, namely, P. Sirajuddin etc. v. State of Madras etc. AIR 1971 SC 520 , Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup and ors. (1974) 1 SCC 103 , State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561 , M/s Rourkela Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar Goyal, 1993 CRL. L.J 1510 and R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and ors. (2009) 1 SCC 516 . 6. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Raman Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondents, produced the record of the VOJ and sought to explain that the petitioner, firstly, withdrew substantial amount from his official Bank Account and thereafter issued cheques worth the amount far less than the amount payable to a particular dealer and obtained receipt from him for the amount which was due to him. Mr. Sharma submitted that verification has been made in respect of the payment made to four dealers and on that score alone, petitioner has been found to have misappropriated Rs. 2, 92,600 by paying them Rs. 4, 91,535 as against Rs. 7, 84,135, which was due to them collectively. Mr. Sharma submitted also that investigation will reveal misappropriation of lacs of rupees after payments made to all the dealers are investigated. 7. The method and the modus operandi said to have been adopted by the petitioner is well understandable from the record produced on behalf of the VOJ, comprising inter alia of the bank statements, which has been examined with the assistance of the learned Deputy Advocate General and the Investigating Officer of the case. 8. Briefly stated, the office of the petitioner maintains Current Account No. 0020010200001104 with the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Rajouri Main. The balance in this account as on 05.04.2012 was Rs. 381. The aforementioned two cheques valuing Rs. 39, 56,094 and Rs. 41, 64,820 (total Rs. 81, 20,914) received from the Assistant Director, CAPD, Rajouri were deposited in/credited to this account on 12.06.2015 raising the balance in the account to Rs. 81, 21,295. The whole amount, however, was withdrawn through three withdrawals amounting to Rs. 15, 00,000, Rs. 21, 30,914 and Rs. 44, 90,000 (total Rs.81, 20,914) respectively made on 15.06.2015, 17.06.2015 and 20.06.2015, thereby reducing the balance to Rs. 381. Rs. 21, 42,500 were again deposited in this account on 23.06.2015. 81, 21,295. The whole amount, however, was withdrawn through three withdrawals amounting to Rs. 15, 00,000, Rs. 21, 30,914 and Rs. 44, 90,000 (total Rs.81, 20,914) respectively made on 15.06.2015, 17.06.2015 and 20.06.2015, thereby reducing the balance to Rs. 381. Rs. 21, 42,500 were again deposited in this account on 23.06.2015. After that various amounts were paid to different persons, who undisputedly are the dealers to whom the amount received through the two cheques was to be disbursed. This payment was made through Payees’ Account Cheques and the amount was transferred/debited from the aforementioned Bank Account to the dealers in bank to bank transaction. 9. Verification was made of the three payments, one each made to Mohd. Yousuf, Anil Kumar and Karam Din and two payments made to Prince Kumar. As per the Bank Statements, these payments were made as per below: Name Cheque No. Amount Date of Payment/Debit by the Bank Mohd. Yousuf 60 Rs. 1,27,140 24.06.2015 Anil Kumar 62 Rs. 85,257 24.06.2015 Karam Din 61 Rs. 1,00,835 23.06.2015 Prince Kumar 82 1502 Rs. 1,17,635 Rs. 60,668 Total: 1,78,303 23.06.2015 25.06.2015 10. As against the aforementioned payments made through Bank, the amount reflected in the record of the petitioner’s office is stated to be Rs. 2, 12,140, Rs. 1, 42,257, Rs. 1, 55,335 and Rs. 2, 74,403 respectively. This aspect is evident also from the two sets of papers produced on behalf of the petitioner too. 11. It is undeniable that the petitioner in his capacity as Incharge TSO, Rajouri and Kalakote, was responsible for proper disbursement of the whole amount to the dealers in accordance with their entitlement. It is also evident, which is not denied, that cheques for making the payment were issued and all withdrawals of money from the official Bank Account were made with the authority and under the signatures of the petitioner. Without making any comment, it is noticed that the entire amount of Rs. 81, 20,914 received in the office of the petitioner from Assistant Director, CAPD, Rajouri by virtue of the two cheques, first was duly deposited in the official Bank Account on 12.06.2015 but was later withdrawn by virtue of three cheques on 15.06.2015, 17.06.2015 and 20.06.2015. Shortly thereafter, Rs. 21, 42,500 were re-deposited in the same account on 23.06.2015, meaning thereby that the remaining amount was retained. Shortly thereafter, Rs. 21, 42,500 were re-deposited in the same account on 23.06.2015, meaning thereby that the remaining amount was retained. Thereafter, payments were made to different ration dealers by individual cheques in a bank to bank transaction and the amount debited from the official bank account was duly reflected therein. The verification made in regard to the payment made to the four dealers has revealed that the amount mentioned in respective cheques issued to them and accordingly debited/transferred from the official Bank Account was considerably less than the amount which was due to them. In the office records of the petitioner’s office, the amount shown to have been paid to these four dealers and the receipts obtained from them, however, depicted the amount that was due to them. It is, thus, evident that payment actually made to the dealers was far less than that due to them and reflected in the official records. In regard to the four dealers, named above, this difference amounts to Rs. 2, 92,600. 12. The principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code by now are well settled. High court under Section 561-A of the Code (Sec. 482 of the Central Code) 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. This power, though it may be used in appropriate cases, has to be used sparingly and cautiously. In Swapan Kumar Ghua’s case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that police investigation can be commenced only if the FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence and if such offence is not disclosed quashing of the FIR would be justified. In the landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , Supreme Court has held that where the allegations made in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any cognizable offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR can be quashed to prevent misuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice. In R. Kalyani’s case cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Supreme Court has held that High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, in FIR unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct, in their entirety disclose no cognizable offence. Nonetheless, Hon’ble Court has further said that the High Court would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases though no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down. 13. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations in the impugned FIR on their plain reading do not constitute commission of any offence is without any substance and is liable to fail. The FIR discloses prima facie dishonest and fraudulent misappropriation of the Government money by the petitioner, which was under his control, by paying the dealers” amount less than what was due to them and reflecting higher amount in the office records. The contention that no misappropriation has taken place is equally without any substance. The contents of the FIR are to be read with and in backdrop of the result of verification conducted by the VOJ. It can rather be said prima facie that a brazen modus operandi for siphoning out the Government money was adopted in the office of the petitioner in which primary role could have been played by none else than the petitioner, who indisputably was responsible for signing the cheques for withdrawing the money from official Bank Account and certifying the disbursement, as has been done on the statement of payments produced by the petitioner’s counsel. To say precisely, the verification has revealed that, firstly, out of the total amount of Rs. 81, 20,914 only an amount of Rs. 21, 42,500 was allowed to remain in the official Bank Account and rest of the amount was withdrawn. The dealers were issued cheques for the amount less than the amount due to them. The receipts obtained from the dealers and the related entries made in the official record of the petitioner, however, reflected the amount which was due to the dealers. 14. The dealers were issued cheques for the amount less than the amount due to them. The receipts obtained from the dealers and the related entries made in the official record of the petitioner, however, reflected the amount which was due to the dealers. 14. Correct it is that as per the record produced before this Court, none of the dealers seems to have raised any grievance in regard to the less payment made to him but that does not rule out the possibility of misappropriation. Lodging of information by the aggrieved person is not sine qua non for setting in motion the action for commission of a criminal offence. How the dealers had issued receipts for the amount more than that actually paid to them and why they did not agitate against less payment are the questions to be investigated, though a glimpse is available in the statements of the aforementioned four dealers recorded by the VOJ, which are available on the record produced on behalf of the VOJ. 15. Another submission made by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner was that the FIR as well as the investigation are vitiated because there had been no compliance of Rule 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Vigilance Commission Rules, 2013 as concurrence for registering the FIR from the Commission was not taken. Reliance was placed on a recent judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in petition under Section 561-A No. 123/2016, Mubassir Latifi v. State. This contention, however, is liable to be rejected as the record produced before the Court contains order of the State Vigilance Commission dated 04.07.2018, whereby the commission has concurred with the conclusion drawn by the VOJ after verification and has recommended registration of the FIR against the petitioner. 16. For all that said and discussed above, this petition has no merit as no case for quashing the impugned FIR is made out and is, therefore, dismissed. The interim direction issued on 25.07.2018 stands vacated.