JUDGMENT : 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C.) petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint and order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the learned City Judge, (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class) Jammu. 2. The petitioner claims to be the General Manager of Hotel K.C. Residency, Jammu and the said hotel has earned a very good reputation not only in the country but outside the country as well. 3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that on 31st December, 2016 the aforesaid Hotel in its restaurant had made arrangements for the purpose of dinner, wherein one Sandeep had made booking of four people for dinner and the said Sandeep had spoken with the petitioner for the table as their booking was full because of 31st December and petitioner had booked one table for said Sandeep and his other accompanying guest. The said Sandeep alongwith respondents herein came in the restaurant and made order for the liquor as well as food. However, before coming in the K.C. Residency Hotel they were drunk and they again ordered for the liquor and the dinner which was properly served to them. It is stated that Hotel Management had mad it clear that after 12 PM in the night the liquor shall not be served. The respondents after 12’O clock insisted to serve liquor, upon this the concerned waiter and the restaurant Manager told that there are instructions not to serve the liquor after 12’O Clock in the night against which the respondents started abusing the hotel staff and started shouting in the restaurant. The Manager of the Restaurant also came to them and requested them that they should not shout like this as it becomes inconvenience to other people, who are in the restaurant along with their families. The respondents were requested to clear the bill and leave the restaurant, upon this they started abusing the staff of the restaurant and in fact man handled some waiters. It is stated that position became grim and taking into consideration that the respected families have been attending dinner and were even staying in the Hotel, the restaurant Manager Incharge Rachit Gandotra called the petitioner to intervene, but even the respondents did not listen to General Manager and started abusing and man handling petitioner also. It is stated that position became grim and taking into consideration that the respected families have been attending dinner and were even staying in the Hotel, the restaurant Manager Incharge Rachit Gandotra called the petitioner to intervene, but even the respondents did not listen to General Manager and started abusing and man handling petitioner also. The petitioner was forced to lodge a complaint to the nearby police post. 4. It is stated that on lodging of the complaint, Incharge Police Post along with few constables came on spot and thereafter caught hold of both the respondents and sent them for the medical examination to Sarwal Hospital, where proper report has been sought. On 3rd January, 2017 petitioner filed another application as a follow-up in the police Post, Residency Road Jammu. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter petitioner came to know about an order dated 07.01.2017, passed by the learned City Judge, (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class) Jammu in a frivolous complaint filed by the respondents as a counter blast against the petitioner and in the said complaint Incharge Police Post Residency Road has also been impleaded as respondent. The said order has been passed on the basis of an application filed by the respondents under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR against the petitioner and the Incharge Police Post Residency Road, Jammu and for investigation by some senior police person. 6. The petitioner aggrieved of the said complaint as well as order dated 07.01.2017 challenges the same on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as the complaint has been filed as a counter blast against the police complaint lodged by the petitioner in the Police Post Residency Road Jammu against the respondents; that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not taken into consideration that the complaint has been lodged seven days after so called incident; that the learned Magistrate without issuing any notice to the petitioner and even to the Incharge Police Post Residency Rod, Jammu and without inquiring about the fact has passed the order dated 07.01.2017; that the idea of the respondents is not to allow the complaint filed by the petitioner to be investigated and that it was proper for the learned Judicial Magistrate to call report from the concerned Police Post Residency Road where the complaint has been filed. 7. 7. During pending of this petition, petitioner filed one application for amendment of prayer class and one application for placing on record report of enquiry conducted by SDPO City East in pursuance to direction of City Judge dated 07.01.2017 (impugned order), where the facts narrated in the complaint were found incorrect. 8. Heard counsel for parties. Counsel for petitioner has reiterated all grounds taken in petition, whereas counsel for respondents has argued that, order impugned is legal; that facts cannot be considered at this stage; that petitioner has no locus to challenge the order; that complaint is correct and requires investigation. 9. I have considered the rival contention and law on the subject. In AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 37 in case titled State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors., it is held as under:- “11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad, Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration, Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:- “(1) 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. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:- “(1) 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR 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. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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.” It is worthy to note that the Court has clarified that the said parameters or guidelines are not exhaustive but only illustrative. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and situations where court’s inherent power can be exercised. 12. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and situations where court’s inherent power can be exercised. 12. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 10. In present case, from perusal of complaint, it would reveal that respondents have filed criminal complaint against petitioner herein and SI Sohit Trikha I/C P/P Residency Road by respondents before JMIC (City Judge) Jammu; wherein they have admitted the factum of going to restaurant along with two other friends on relevant day and time i.e. on 31st December 2016; they have also admitted fact of taking liquor; but in complaint it has been stated that on asking for the final bill, they came to know that there were charges of items, which they neither ordered nor consumed and hotel staff refused to correct the same, so Manager of the Hotel was sought to clear the issue and complainant refused to pay the bill; it has further been stated that Hotel Manager (Rahul Jandial) turned not to be solace and he caused the nuisance and threatened; complainant then paid Rs.2,854/- as bill amount through card; that after paying the bill, when they came out along with friends, I/C P/P Residency Road SI Sohit Trikha along with police personal started beating and dragged them; that they were taken to police post and were made to sit on floor in corner; it has further been stated that complainant made a complaint to SI with regard to manhandling of them by petitioner, but SI showed gun instead of lodging of FIR. Then they were taken to Sarwal Hospital at 1.30 am for medical examination with regard to presence of liquor; but police did not get the medical examination with regard to assault. Later at 3 AM they were released after taking personal bonds, with direction to report on Monday at 10 AM. Then they were taken to Sarwal Hospital at 1.30 am for medical examination with regard to presence of liquor; but police did not get the medical examination with regard to assault. Later at 3 AM they were released after taking personal bonds, with direction to report on Monday at 10 AM. SI also threatened them that, he has 400 batch mates and they will make the life of complainant miserable. That on Monday 0n 2.1.2016 when they went police post they were made to stand till 1.30 PM and were again threatened. That they wanted to lodge written report with SHO Police Station City, but it was found that he was batch mate of SI I/C Police Residency road, so they lodged report with SSP Jammu, but found to be futile exercise, because matter was again given to SHO P/S City; who asked them to settle matter amicably. 11. This complaint was forwarded to SHO P/S Station City by JMIC on 07.01.2017 for registration of FIR, but it was directed by Magistrate that investigation shall be conducted by SDPO as one of accused is Police SI. 12. While applying the above law (State of Telangana’s case supra) to present case, it is evident that this criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and has been 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; there are exaggeration made in facts in complaint, in order to create illusion of criminal cause of action, which is not permissible under law. Further in compliance to JMIC order dated 07.01.2017, a detail investigation was conducted by ASP (IPS) SDPO City East, the detail of which is on the file, which reveals that facts narrated by complainants were not found corroborated by any other witnesses and so facts narrated by them were found baseless. Medical reports of respondents reveal that Doctor has categorically opined that they consumed liquor. The complaint u/s 36 of the Police Act also corroborates the fact of taking liquor and creating of nuisance by respondents on relevant day and time. The argument of counsel for respondents/complainants that report of SDPO does not carry any value because no FIR was registered, is not tenable. Because purpose of investigation/enquiry is to collect evidence with regard to truth fullness of allegation leveled in complaint. The argument of counsel for respondents/complainants that report of SDPO does not carry any value because no FIR was registered, is not tenable. Because purpose of investigation/enquiry is to collect evidence with regard to truth fullness of allegation leveled in complaint. The criminal proceeding has been launched by respondents as counter blast to police case filed u/s 36 of Police Act by I/C P/P Residency Road SI Sohal Trikha on the instance of petitioner, which is not permissible under law. It amounts to abuse of process law. 13. In view of what has been discussed above, the allegations in the complaint are exaggeration to actual facts in order to create illusion of criminal cause of action. The said complaint is manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and to counter the criminal complaint under Section 36 of Police Act. This petition is accordingly accepted and complaint, as well order dated 7.1.2017 of JMIC (City Judge) are quashed.