JUDGMENT : 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C.) petitioners seek quashing of Charge Sheet No.14 dated 23.05.2017 with respect to FIR No.36 of 2013 Police Station Crime Branch, Jammu, with a further prayer for quashing of proceedings pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu.. 2. Petitioners claim to be an Educational Trust, which has been imparting education to the students amongst other things to different sections of the Society since its creation. The trust was created in the year 2007 and the petitioner's Institute started the course of Elementary Teachers Training (ETT) under RKS Educational Institute, Bishnah, Jammu. It is stated that the infrastructure was raised by the Institute as required under the norms and the institute applied to the Government for grant of ‘No-Objection-Certificate’ which was issued in favour of the Petitioner’s Institute in the year 2008 vide order dated 19.11.2008. It is stated that No-Objection-Certificate’ to run ETT Course for the Session 2007-09 was issued in favour of the petitioner’s institute on the basis of available infrastructure and inspection reports. The inspection of the petitioner’s institute was conducted by a Committee comprising of officials of high repute and the Committee observed that the infrastructure available with Institute is sufficient and the grant of NOC may be considered. The constitution of the Committee and the inspection of the Institute was done in terms of order dated 21.09.2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in the year 2007, the State Government issued another Govt. Order bearing No. 251-Edu of 2007 dated 16.07.2007 pertaining to grant of NOC by the State Government and it has been specifically provided in this order that the Institutes having 05 teaching rooms with dimension of 300 sq.ft per room will have a capacity of 120 students and the institutes having 06 teaching rooms with a dimension of 300 sq. ft. per room will have intake capacity of 150 students. It is stated that in order to streamline the functioning of these Institutes, the State Government vide SRO 123 dated 18th March. 2010 made the Jammu & Kashmir School Education Rules 2010. ft. per room will have intake capacity of 150 students. It is stated that in order to streamline the functioning of these Institutes, the State Government vide SRO 123 dated 18th March. 2010 made the Jammu & Kashmir School Education Rules 2010. In terms of these rules for running Elementary Teachers Training Institute/Nursery Teachers Training Institute (ETT/NTT) it has been further provided that with 05 teaching rooms, the capacity of 120 students will be available and with 06 teaching rooms capacity of 150 students will be available. It is further stated that after the NOC was granted in the year 2008 against the application filed by the Petitioner in the year 2007, the Petitioner's Institute did not commence its Courses for the Session 2007-09 and in fact, the Session began in the year 2008 and the Petitioner's Institute admitted 120 students for the said Academic Session. Further, that the State had been issuing NOCs to the Institutes on annual basis on the basis of the inspections conducted by the Committees constituted in this behalf and for the Session 2009-11 the Petitioner's Institute was again inspected by a Committee constituted by the State Government and this inspection was done on 13.5.2010. It has been specifically provided in the inspection report that the petitioner's Institute has six class rooms of the required dimensions apart from the other infrastructure available with the Institution and the Institute is functioning on 9 Kanals of land having infrastructure as per the specified government norms with two extra class rooms. This was again recommended for grant of NOC. The case of the petitioner Institute was considered by the State Government and in terms of the norms fixed by the State, the Petitioner was expected to have the NOC for 150 students with 6% management quota and to the utter surprise of the petitioners, the NOC was granted for 120 students plus 6% management quota, however the NOC was granted for 120 students plus 6% management quota. Aggrieved by the NOC issued by the State for lesser number of students, the petitioners immediately made a representation and the said representation was forwarded by the Joint Director, State Institute of Education to the Commissioner/Secretary on 16.12.2010 and when nothing happened at the level of State Govt., the Petitioners’ Institute was constrained to file a Writ Petition bearing OWP No.541/2011 titled R.K.S. Teachers Training Institute versus State & others and the said writ petition came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27.4.2011, with a direction to the State to take a decision in the matter within a period of 12 weeks from the date copy of the order is served upon Respondents. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the case of the petitioner's Institute was again considered and renewal of NOC was accorded in favour of the petitioner's Institute with intake capacity of 150 students plus 6% management quote. It is stated that thereafter, petitioner's Institute approached the Hon'ble Court for enhancement of its quota for the Session 2009-11 and the State in principle agreed that the Institute would be entitled to 150 students plus 6% management quota and the presumption under law would be that the NOC by the State Government has been granted for the Session 2009-11 and this Session concluded somewhere in April 2012 with the declaration of the results by the J&K Board of School Education and for this Session the petitioner's Institute had admitted 147 students, as permissible in terms of SRO 123 and the NOC has also been granted in favour of the Institute in terms of SRO 123. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that a Public Interest Litigation came to be filed before the Srinagar Wing of this Hon'ble Court titled 'Parents Coordination Committee Versus State of J&K & others' and in the said Public Interest Litigation the Hon'ble Court has issued orders from time to time and in one of the orders it has been directed by the Hon'ble High Court that in all those Institutes, running ETT Courses which are fictitious or non-existent, enquiry may be made by the Crime Branch and appropriate action may be taken against the said Institutes. It is stated that respondents as a consequence of the said directions started investigating into the matter by registering FIR No.36 of 2013 and in the investigation of the said FIR, the petitioner’s Institute has also been booked. So far as the petitioner's Institute is concerned, a challan has been presented before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu vide Charge Sheet No.14 dated 23.5.2017. It is stated that while presenting the Charge Sheet against the Petitioner's Institute, it has been stated that the petitioner's Institute has admitted students over and above the intake capacity of the Institute. The Session-wise enrolment of the students has been provided as under :- Session 2008-10 127 students Session 2009-11 147 students Session 2011-13 09 students 5. It has been further provided that the Institute has not enrolled any student for the Sessions 2007-09 when the NOC was granted and admitted students in the Session 2009-10. For the Session 2009-11 the NOC was issued for l20 students plus 6% management quota and the Institute had illegally enrolled 147 students in this Session, in connivance with the Board authorities. The Charge Sheet further qualifies that the intake capacity of the Institute was enhanced by the State vide NOC issued on 02.12.2011. 6. Aggrieved of the Charge Sheet No. 14 dated 23.5.2017 in FIR No. 36 of 2013, petitioners challenges the same on various grounds : That while presenting the Challan against the Institute it has been stated that the Institutes have been established with insufficient capacity as well as made excess enrolment with the BOSE accused officers and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy the Board officials issued the terms/affiliation to these ETT Institutes without conducting the academic inspections. Further, the BOSE officials with dishonest intentions allowed the promoters to enroll disproportionate number of students to confer undue benefits upon them by sheer abuse of their official positions and during the course of investigation and statements of the witnesses offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B/RPC read with Section 5(2) P.C. Act 2006 have been established against the petitioners; that So far as the allegations against the Petitioner's Institute is concerned, it is only with respect to the Session 2009-11 when the institute has admitted 147 students as alleged in the Charge Sheet against 120 students plus 6% management quota; that the Institute has acted bonafidely and the State has acceded to the request of the Institute, though pursuant to the Court directions, but the fact remains that the Institute was granted NOC by the State Govt. with intake capacity of 150 students plus 6% management quota. The Institute is not fictitious and, as stated in the Charge Sheet, was running the academic Sessions regularly and the infrastructure was sufficient to cope up with the intake capacity of 150 students plus 6% management quota; that the perusal of the Charge Sheet in no way constitute any of the offences as stated in the Charge Sheet and in case the Petitioner No.2 is subjected to this Charge Sheet, it would be a harassment to a person of 82 years of age without any basis and for none of his faults, as he has acted on behalf of the Institute bona fidely and has not committed any offence, which warrants the presentation of this Charge Sheet against him; that the Charge Sheet itself states that the Petitioner No.2 is 82 years of age and is suffering from 'OstroArthriis of both the knees' and is unable to walk; that the Charge Sheet presented against the Institute through its promoter, Petitioner No.2 in no way connects the Institute with the offences mentioned in the Charge Sheet and rather the Charge-Sheet itself says that Institute is proper and not fictitious and has been imparting education in terms of the infrastructure available as per the norms fixed by the State and has not committed any offence for which the Charge Sheet has been presented. Charge-sheet, as such, so far as the petitioner’s institute and petitioner No.2 is concerned, the same is liable to be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. From the perusal of challan filed by respondent, it is evident that challan has been filed against petitioner and many others’ institute under section 420/467/468/471/120-B RPC read with section 5(2) P.C. Act. Allegation against petitioner is as under :- “R.K.S. Educational (ETT) institute. Bishnah. Jammu” This institute was established through a Trust namely "R.K.S. Educational Trust" executed before the Sub Registrar, Jammu on 29.10.2007, through which (1) Sh. Krishan Chand Sharma (2) Sarup Chand Sharma Sons of Madan Gopal Sharma R/o Ward No. 7, Bishnah, Jammu, (3) Neelarn Khajuria W/o Jatinder Paul Sharma R/o 94/1-A, Channi Himat Jammu and (4) Ashok Kumar Dubey S/o Jagdish Raj Dubey R/o Wad No. 8, Bishnah, Jammu have been nominated as the settlers of the Trust. Perusal of Secretariat file reveals that initially the inspection of this institute was conducted by the Govt. team on 26.10.2007 at Bishnah, Jammu and the team observed that the institution is proposed to be run within the complex of R.K.S. Public Higher Secondary School, Bishnah having 161 students enrolled. Examination Hall, Library, Reading room and Principal Room are common with the school and recommended for consideration of NOC. Subsequently, vide letter No. Edu/ETT/NTT/270/07 dated 26.12.2007, the promoter of the institute was asked to furnish NOC from BOSE for running of RKS ETT Course within the complex of RKS Hr. Sec. School and also furnish independent infrastructure like as Examination Hall, Library, Reading room and Principal. Room. Again Principal SIE, Convener ETT committee vide letter No. F(ETT-INSP) SIEJ-377-3811 dated 08.02.2008 submitted the NOC of BOSE and Registration Certificate of Labour deptt. provided by the promoter of the institute, to Secretary School Education Department for further necessary action. In between the promoter of the institute, namely, Sarup Chand Sharma approached the Hon’ble High Court through an OWP No. 538/2008 and CMP No. 816/2008. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 25.06.2008 directed the School Education Department to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of NOC. Accordingly, NOC was granted by the Govt. vide No. Edu/Legal//ETT/1/08 dated 19.11.2008 for the session 2007-2009 without mentioning intake capacity of the students. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 25.06.2008 directed the School Education Department to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of NOC. Accordingly, NOC was granted by the Govt. vide No. Edu/Legal//ETT/1/08 dated 19.11.2008 for the session 2007-2009 without mentioning intake capacity of the students. Another inspection of the institute was conducted by the Govt. team on 13 05.2010 and the team observed that the institute is functioning on 09 kanal piece of land having infrastructure as per specified Govt. norms with extra two rooms and recommended for renewal of NOC. Subsequently, the NOC for the session 2009-11 was renewed by the Govt. vide No. Edu/ ETT/120/2010 dated 25.05.2010 with an intake capacity of 120 students plus 6 % management quota. The promoter vide application dated 19.11.2010 approached the School Education Department for enhancement of seats from 120 to 150 students plus 6 % management quota, but no enhancement was made by the School Education department. However, the promoter of the institute approached the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 27.04.2011 directed the School Education department to consider the enhancement of seats in favour of the RKS ETT Institute. The promoter of the institute vide application dated 30.05.2011 alongwith Court order dated 27.04.2011 approached the School Education department for enhancement of seats. However, vide Note para No. 9 dated 16.06.2011 of Secretariat file, it reveals that "since the session 2009-2011 already expired, if approved, we may consider enhancement of favour of RKS ETT Institute seats from 120 to 150 seats for the ensuing session in favour of RKS ETT Institute Bishnah, as the institution has six class rooms as per report of the inspection team.” Accordingly, the NOC for the next session 2011-2013 was renewed by the Govt. on 02.12.2011 with an intake capacity of 150 students plus 6% management quota with some conditions. From the perusal of Board file it was found that after obtaining the NOC, the inspection of this institute was conducted by the Board authorities 24.01.2008 and the team observed that the institution is having six classes rooms with sufficient accommodation and recommended for issuance of NOC for start of ETT classes in the session 2007-2009. From the perusal of Board file it was found that after obtaining the NOC, the inspection of this institute was conducted by the Board authorities 24.01.2008 and the team observed that the institution is having six classes rooms with sufficient accommodation and recommended for issuance of NOC for start of ETT classes in the session 2007-2009. Another inspection of this institute was conducted by the then Assistant Secretary, Secrecy-1, JD and Section Officer, UFM, JD on 11.10.2011 and the team observed that „there are no rooms for ETT courses Secondary School is functioning in the premises of above Educational Trust. No NOC has been furnished by the Institute to run ETIC. The session-wise enrolment of the students of this institute was as under :- Session 2008-2010 (127 students), 2008-2010 C/C (Nil), 2009-2011 (147 students) and 2011-2013 ((09 students). During investigation it was found that NOC was granted by the Govt. in favour of the institute for the 2007-2009. The promoter of the institute had not enrolled students in the said session, but had enrolled students in the session 2008-2010. Later on, NOC for the session 2009-2011 was renewed by the Govt. with an intake capacity of 120 students plus 6% management quota, but the promoter of the institute had illegally namely Sarup Chand Sharma enrolled 147 students in the session 2009-2011 in connivance with the BOSE authorities. Though the intake capacity has been further enhanced during the session 2-11-2013 as per the seized record of School Education Department.” 8. From bare perusal of these allegations, it is evident that cognizable offence has been made out against the petitioners and police after investigation has produced the challan. 9. The law with regard to quashing of FIR/Challan 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. 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. 10. This court while exercising the power under section 561-A Cr.P.C., does not function as Court of trial, appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. 10. This court while exercising the power under section 561-A Cr.P.C., does not function as Court of trial, appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully 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; whether on the basis of statements of witnesses alleged offence is made out or not against the petitioner, is not within the domain of this court while deciding the petition u/s 561-A Cr.P.C. 11. All the pleas taken in the instant 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 or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceeding. 12. In view of above discussion, this petition is dismissed. Interim stay, if any, is vacated. However, petitioners are at liberty to take all pleas of facts or law before trial court at the time of framing of charge.