JUDGMENT : 1. In the instant petition, the petitioners seek quashing of challan and charges framed in the proceedings arising from FIR No.14/2014, Crime Branch Police, Jammu, pending before 2nd additional Sessions judge, Jammu.. 2. The material facts of the case are that the complainant party had only 09 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land comprised of only Khasra No.132 at Village Jagtu Chak. They agreed to sell the land to the petitioners for a consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- and after obtaining the whole consideration amount, executed an Agreement to sell on 17th December, 1999 and delivered the possession. They also executed an irrevocable power of attorney on 08th April, 2000, authorizing the applicants to sell or do anything with the land, which the owners were capable of doing. In consequence of the agreement to sell and Power of Attorney, the applicants executed a Sale Deed in favour of their father on 29th February, 2000, which was registered by the Sub-Registrar, R.S. Pura are in possession thereof since 1999. The complainant party never raised any objection till 2013. At the time of executing the Sale Deed, it transpired that the Khasra number of the land belonging to the complainant was not 138, which was mentioned in Agreement to sell and power of attorney, but 132 and that the land bearing Khasra No.138 was 10 Kanals and belonged to Koshalia, Janak Singh, Indar Singh and others, Rajputs, out of which 04 Kanals and 16 Marlas is under PWD road and the rest under the personal cultivation of the owners. This information was given by Patwari, whom the petitioners approached for getting the requisite revenue papers for sale execution of Sale Deed. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the complainants to get the Khasra number corrected. They kept the POA with them for some days and returned inserting the digit ‘2’ in place of digit ‘8’ and the applicants executed the Sale Deed. The applicants are rustic villagers and did not know how to get the digit ‘8’ replaced by digit ‘2’. The complainant party all reside in Jammu Capital area and four are the officers. Most of them are KAS Officers and, thus, they were able to mislead the petitioners. 3. The applicants are rustic villagers and did not know how to get the digit ‘8’ replaced by digit ‘2’. The complainant party all reside in Jammu Capital area and four are the officers. Most of them are KAS Officers and, thus, they were able to mislead the petitioners. 3. It is stated in the instant petition that the complainants, who know what they have done when prices of land shoot upto sky, hatched a conspiracy to get the land back and filed a Civil Suit for declaration that they have executed POA for Khasra No.138, but the Sale Deed has been executed for 132 and sought interim injunction. Thereafter, the complainants approached police for registering a case of forgery. They were told that no offence was made out. Thereafter, they filed a Complaint under the provisions mentioned above without filing record of Khasra No.138 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, who made an order under Section 156 (3) CPC to Crime Branch, who after blackmailing the applicants produced the Challan, which was assigned to the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. The petitioners made an application to the learned Trial Court that no offence is made out against the applicants-accused, but only against the complainants, who had deposed during investigation under Sections 164-A and 161 of the RPC that they had executed power of attorney for Khasra No.138 and that the complainants have made agreement to sell, but the petitioners have erased digit 8 and forget digit 2, making it 132, whereas revenue record of Khasra No.138 was, as submitted above and the Patwari’s Report filed with the Challan show that the complainants have no ownership or possession over Khasra No.138. 4. It is also stated in the instant petition that though the matter was argued at length by the petitioners’ counsel, the learned Trial Judge did not consider the arguments and extensive law cited and charged the petitioners according to Challan and only remarked that this matter is for another forum and not for Trial Court and did not say anything about the conduct of the complainants, neither obtained objections, as earlier directed on 11.11.2017 nor passed any order regarding the petitioners’ prayer in the application and charged the applicants even though PP did not press for it nor responded to application. 5. 5. The petitioners seek indulgence of Hon’ble Court inter alia on the following grounds :- (a) That the impugned order is contrary to law and facts and cannot sustain legal scrutiny. (b) That even assuming for the sake of argument without admitting that digit from 8 to 2 was changed by the petitioners even then, no offence is made out against the petitioners/accused, as all the offences, whereunder the petitioners are charged, commence with the phrase that when a person forges a document with dishonest intention to deceive a person with an intention to illegally and dishonestly take his property and whereas the dishonest intention of petitioners has not been proved, as they had paid full consideration and taken possession of land in December, 1999 and the petitioners have been in possession of their only land in the village, i.e., Khasra No. 132 and the complainants have also committed offence of filing false complaint and stated on oath before the Magistrate that they have executed power of attorney and agreement to sell the land of some other persons, not of their own. They have committed grave offences and should be treated by Crime Branch Police with such unprecedented favour and the learned Trial Court also treated the matter without any concern for justice to the wrong persons, leaving the petitioners abdicating duty exercise the power vested in it, but law to scan the record and law before framing charges, which is a serious matter. The Trial Court has fallen in grave error of law by holding that on this record, only petitioners could be charged and the complainants can be prosecuted only after this trial or in a separate prosecution if initiated. The present trial with 17 PWs is not likely to take long years and the present challan can be most appropriately be turned into prosecution of the complainants, who have confessed their guild on oath. The present trial with 17 PWs is not likely to take long years and the present challan can be most appropriately be turned into prosecution of the complainants, who have confessed their guild on oath. (c) That the Crime Branch Police have also committed serious crime against innocent petitioners and to oblige the real criminals and awarded them with false challan against the petitioners with dishonest intention to promote complainants’ criminal conspiracy against the petitioners and due to stress and emotional breakdown, petitioner No. 1 who was a fine Army Commando and was solely facing and spending on whole the multiple frivolous litigation, suffered severe brain stroke and was paralyzed due to mental stress and strain, caused by the false litigation and can move only on wheel chair. This has been caused by the complainants with the help of Crime Branch Police, as they are very rich and have got the false and frivolous challan against the petitioners by bribing the Crime Branch Police. It is due to bribe that Crime Branch have shielded the complainants against whom offences were made out and the challan should have been produced, would have been and must have been framed charges. The Crime Branch did so with an intention that civil case of the complainants should continue and the petitioners be continued to be blackmailed for indefinite period. Copy of the same initial medical report, which was filed by petitioners in the Trial Court with application is enclosed herewith as Annexure-G to the petition. (d) That the petitioners will submit more grounds at the time of hearing. However, Court was obligated to examine the provisions of offences invoked, which were read out in detail by the petitioners’ counsel for two days. In fact, the Trial Court did not put any query and agreed with on the arguments of counsel. (e) That the learned Trial Judge has wrongly relied on AIR 2000 SC 522 that when a Judge decides to frame charge, he need not writ a detail order. The ruling on the contrary bolds that the Judge has to so decide after examining the challan/police report and the documents on record to frame the charge and not only the police report, which itself is extremely adverse against the documents and which does not justify the challan. The Court has failed to act judicially as sentinel of protection by doing justice. 6. The Court has failed to act judicially as sentinel of protection by doing justice. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. Counsel for petitioner has reiterated the grounds taken in memo of petition, whereas respondent’s counsel has supported the order of charge and investigation of police, which culminated into filing of challan. 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in case titled, “Sushil Suri Vs. C.B.I. & Anr., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1713 . 8. From the perusal of charge-sheet, it is evident that allegations against accused are that complainant executed a power of attorney in favour of accused persons on 10.04.2000 with respect to land measuring 9k and 18m falling under Kh. No.138 situated at Chak Jagtu tehsil R.S.Pura, but accused persons in pursuance of criminal conspiracy tampered the power of attorney and inserted Kh. No.132 in place of 138 and executed sale deed in favor of accused Girdhari Lal. Crime branch after completing investigation found offences under section 420/413/465/467/468/471/120-B RPC against accused/petitioners. Challan was produced and ultimately court below framed charges against accused /petitioners. 9. In case titled Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka reported in 2008 (3) SCC 753 , it has been held as under :- “(10) In a catena of decisions this Court has deprecated the interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code in a routine manner. It has been consistently held that the power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. In other words, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In other words, the inherent power of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (11) This Court, in a catena of decisions, consistently gave a note of caution that inherent power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. This Court also held that the High Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice. (12) We now refer to a few decisions of this Court deprecating the exercise of extra ordinary or inherent powers by the High Court according to its whims and caprice. (13) In State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554 this Court pointed out at SCC p. 574 : The High Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction committed a grave error by making observations on seriously disputed questions of facts taking its cue from affidavits which in such a situation would hardly provide any reliable material. In our opinion the High Court was clearly in error in giving the direction virtually amounting to a mandamus to close the case before the investigation is complete. We say no more. (14) In Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad (1972) 1 SCC 452 this Court at SCC p. 455 pointed out : In exercising jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court can quash proceedings if there is no legal evidence or if there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings but the High Court does not ordinarily inquire as to whether the evidence is reliable or not. Where again, investigation into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then be the impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Where again, investigation into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then be the impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. (15) In Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration (1974) 4 SCC 522 the application filed by the accused under Section 561-A of the old Code for quashing the investigation was dismissed as being premature and incompetent on the finding that prima facie, the allegations in the FIR, if assumed to be correct, constitute a cognizable offence. (16) In Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 451 , this Court pointed out : It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a first information report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the FIR. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. (emphasis supplied) (17) In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988) 4 SCC 655 this Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and has given the working that in exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.” 10. In view of above law, criminal proceeding 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. 11. 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., 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 re-examine the evidence as to whether charge for alleged offence was made out or not, unless charge framed is perverse in nature. In present case there is sufficient evidence, including that of FSL that insertion has been made. All the pleas taken in the petition 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. The law cited is not applicable because facts of the case quite different to that of present case. The order of framing of charge by court below is well reasoned as there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons. 12. In view of above discussion, this petition is dismissed. Interim stay, if any, is vacated.