ORDER : Rashid Ali Dar, J. 1. By the medium of this petition filed under Section 561-A Cr. PC, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court in quashing the report under Section 173 Cr. PC, along with all proceeding emanating therefrom. For this summoning of the records of the case under FIR No. 22/2006, from the Court of learned Designated Court under PC Act (Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla) is also sought. 2. The facts as these emerge from the petition of the petitioner is that in terms of report under Section 173 Cr. PC, based on FIR No. 22/2006 of Police Station, Vigilance Organization Kashmir, was presented before the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Baramulla. Petitioner has been alleged to have been in league with other accused persons, as Store Keeper, PHE, M&P Division, Srinagar, are misappropriated an amount of Rs. 3,82,195/- and thereby committed offence under Section 5(2) PC Act read with Section 468, 471, 201, 120-B RPC. The petitioner submits that the said report under Section 173 Cr. PC, as filed by the respondents as a matter of fact pertains to the acts of omission and commission as have been alleged against other two accused persons namely Mohd. Maqbool Wani and Manzoor Ahmad Hajam, who were posted at PHE Division, Handwara, respectively, as Stock Assistant and Storekeeper. The respondent-Investigating Agency without any nexus of whatsoever nature, roped the petitioner in the said case by making certain allegations. 3. Negating the correctness of allegations made in terms of the report under Section 173 Cr. PC, against the petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the same on the grounds, inter alia, that the allegations have led to serious abuse of process of Court, being absurd and inherently improbable in that on the basis thereof no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. It is the case of respondents that the other accused persons posted at PHE Division, Handwara, had recorded the relevant entries of receipt of the pack of pipe specials as were dispatched from PHE Division, Srinagar. The petitioner submits that in presence of the said relevant entries, no question of attributing misappropriation against him could arise, merely because of the commission of acts alleged against them. The petitioner submits that in presence of the said relevant entries, no question of attributing misappropriation against him could arise, merely because of the commission of acts alleged against them. The allegations made in the report have as well resulted in miscarriage of justice inasmuch as the Investigating Agency despite of having taken domain of the relevant records have failed to take the investigation to logical conclusion by identifying Shri Bashir Ahmad Hakak. It is submitted that instead of investigating the matter fully, the respondents have sought to shift the blame upon the petitioner by asserting his failure to identify the said person. The said report is again absurd and based on inherent improbability inasmuch as the same has alleged the falsification of the Gate Pass without any justification or basis moreso when the material in question on receipt at the place of destination at PHE Division, Handwara, was duly entered in the relevant records. It is further submitted that as per the admitted records, the material in question was dispatched from M&P Division, Srinagar, on 30.03.2005 vide Gate Pass No. 1620 on the basis of proper authorization of the competent authority in the Division, pursuant to the indents issued by PHE Division Handwara, specifically identifying its Divisional Storekeeper, Shri Manzoor Ahmad with authority to lift, receive and acknowledge the material dispatched. The petitioner has placed on record copies of seven indents said to have been issued by PHE Division, Handwara, bearing the acknowledgment of the above Shri Manzoor Ahmad, Divisional Storekeeper, as already available on the records of the case before the trial Court according to him. The acknowledgment of the material lifted by the authorized person and the receipt thereof at PHE Division, Handwara, fully testifies that the petitioner has been wrongly and illegally and without any just basis roped into the case which basically pertains to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The involvement of the petitioner by application of the provision under Section 120-B RPC is unjustified especially when no circumstances justifying criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and other accused persons is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Heard Mr. Haqani, who reiterated the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein being abuse process of law in the light of facts referred in the petition while pleading, the petitioner is not involved for the commission of any offence. 4. Heard Mr. Haqani, who reiterated the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein being abuse process of law in the light of facts referred in the petition while pleading, the petitioner is not involved for the commission of any offence. He referred to documents annexed with the petition as Annexure P2, which according to him sound items referred therein having been dispatched by the petitioner herein and received by the concerned official at Handwara. The exercise initiated by the Investigating Agency and referred to page 30 to 32 of the petition is mala fide and unwarranted. He has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled State of Haryana & Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, which according to him support the pleas raised in the petition for quashment of proceedings. It is further submitted that the omission on the part of petitioner for not signing the Gate pass or quoting the particulars of driver according to him would not amount to criminal misconduct for which cognizance can be taken under Section 5(2) PC Act. 5. On the other hand, learned AAG submitted that there is no ground for quashment of proceedings for which the trial is being faced by the present petitioner. He submitted that this Court cannot act as an appellate court or revisory authority in exercise of powers under Section 561-A Cr. PC. No finding can be recorded by this court on any question of fact, which form subject matter of the trial is further submitted by him. The factual backdrop on which reliance is placed by the petitioner can be examined by the trial Court when the accused enters defence according to him. 6. Considered rival arguments and perused the material placed on record. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Suraj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540 , has sounded a note of caution regarding the power of High Court to be exercised in terms of Section 561-A Cr. PC, corresponding to Section 482 of Central Code. 6. Considered rival arguments and perused the material placed on record. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Suraj Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540 , has sounded a note of caution regarding the power of High Court to be exercised in terms of Section 561-A Cr. PC, corresponding to Section 482 of Central Code. Their lordships enunciated that the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, being of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material before the Court. While exercising inherent jurisdiction as observed their lordships is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Court. It would be none of the duties of the High Court to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the material produced are sufficient or not for holding the accused guilty. 8. It would also herein proper to refer judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, reported in AIR 1993 SC 892 , 1993 CriLJ 600. While summarizing the principles in the light of which inherent powers can be exercised, the Apex Court has observed: 132. The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. 133. The Judicial Committee in (1) Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad and (2) Lala Jai Ram Das v. Emperor has taken the view that Section 561-A of the old Code gave no new powers but only provided that those which the Court already inherently possessed should be preserved. This view holds the field till date. 134. This Court in Dr. 133. The Judicial Committee in (1) Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad and (2) Lala Jai Ram Das v. Emperor has taken the view that Section 561-A of the old Code gave no new powers but only provided that those which the Court already inherently possessed should be preserved. This view holds the field till date. 134. This Court in Dr. Raghubir Sharon v. The State of Bihar had an occasion to examine the extent of inherent power of the High Court and its jurisdiction when to be exercised. Mudholkar, J speaking for himself and Raghubar Dayal, J after referring a series of decisions of the Privy Council and of the various High Courts held thus: ...every High Court as the highest court exercising criminal jurisdiction in a State has inherent power to make any order for the purpose of securing the ends of justice.... Being an extraordinary power it will, however, not be pressed in aid except for remedying a flagrant abuse by a subordinate Court to is powers.... 135. See Talab Hazi Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Anr. [1958] SCR 1226 and Pampapathy v. State of Mysore [1966] (Supp.) SCR 477. 136. Thus, the inherent power under this Section can be exercised by the High Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code; or (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; or (3) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In relation to exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, it has been observed in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra that the power in not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of grievance of the aggrieved party and that it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice and that it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. Vide (1) Talab Hazi Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam ; (2) Khushi Ram v. Hashim and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 542 ; and (3) State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala. 137. This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Vide (1) Talab Hazi Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam ; (2) Khushi Ram v. Hashim and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 542 ; and (3) State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala. 137. This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally retrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quashing the proceedings at any stage. This Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1990] 3 Supp. SCR 256 to which both of us were parties have dealt with this question at length and enunciated the law listing out the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in quashing proceedings. We do not, therefore, think it necessary in the present case to extensively deal with the import and intendment of the powers under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur v. State, reported in AIR 1999, SC 3597 held that the appreciation of the evidence is the function of the Court when seized of the matter. Further their lordships observed that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr. PC, to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se, it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of otherwise of the allegations. 10. In case Manjula Sinha v. State of U.P., reported in 2008 3 SCC (Cri) 271 their lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court observed that where charge-sheet has already been filed and charge also framed, question of quashing FIR does not arise. 11. In the light of settled legal position, it requires to be underscored that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-Cr. In case Manjula Sinha v. State of U.P., reported in 2008 3 SCC (Cri) 271 their lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court observed that where charge-sheet has already been filed and charge also framed, question of quashing FIR does not arise. 11. In the light of settled legal position, it requires to be underscored that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-Cr. PC has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution. From the facts pleaded, it is clear that the final report has been submitted before the concerned Court on 04.08.2011 and the petitioner herein has been held prima facie guilty for the commission of offences under Sections 468, 471, 201, 120-B of RPC on 28.06.2016. In the charge framed against the accused, it is stated that the petitioner while dispatching the material under Gate Pass No. 1620 dated 30.3.2005, had neither signed the Gate Pass nor shown the description of vehicle and particulars of the driver. Misappropriation is stated to have been made by the petitioner herein in connivance with accused Nos. 1 and 2. Furthermore, it is also alleged that the Gate Pass books normally remained in the custody of petitioner, but in the instant case, he had willfully destroyed the counterfoil of aforementioned Gate Pass. He had drafted the Hand Receipt Voucher No. 103 dated 30.03.2005, for Rs. 3000/- in favour of some Bashir Ahmad Hakak R/o Bemina, whereabouts of whom could not be ascertained during investigation, and got it authenticated by the then JE Stores, namely Imtiyaz Ahmad Qadoosi, as loading charges for the material, i.e. Pipe specials, which were shown to have been dispatched to PHE Division, Handwara. It may be also relevance herein to state that the accused Manzoor Ahmad Hajam is alleged to have hatched a criminal conspiracy with Stock Assistant Mohammad Maqbool Wani, by abusing their official position and misappropriated the government money by manipulating the records after making forged signatures of AEE Sopore, Zaffar Ahmad Fakhtoo on Counterfoil of GR No. 58 dated 30.03.2005 and issue account 2nd for the year 2005-06 and insertions in the issue Account files, indent files, Priced store ledger, Gate Passes, Indent Registers etc. The accused Manzoor Ahmad Hajam in connivance with Mohammad Maqbool Wani, stock Assistant & Mohammad Ramzan Bhat then Storekeeper, PHE M&P Division, Srinagar, is alleged to have misappropriated the pipe specials worth Rs. The accused Manzoor Ahmad Hajam in connivance with Mohammad Maqbool Wani, stock Assistant & Mohammad Ramzan Bhat then Storekeeper, PHE M&P Division, Srinagar, is alleged to have misappropriated the pipe specials worth Rs. 3,82,195/- shown to have been dispatched from PHE M&P Division, Srinagar, vide Gate Pass No. 1620 dated 30.03.2005 to PHE Division Handwara. He has received copy of Gate Pass without signatures of Mohammad Ramzan Bhat Ex Storekeeper PHE, M&P, Division, Srinagar. The said Gate Pass does not carry the Registration No. of vehicle and name of driver through whom the material was shown dispatched. Manzoor Ahmad has made the fictitious entry of material in GR No. 58 dated 30.03.2005 of undelivered pack shown to have been received from PHE, M&P, Division, Srinagar vide Gate Pass No. 1620. The entries have been reflected in the priced store ledger which should have been in the custody of Stock Assistant and necessary entries should have been made by the Stock Assistant only. The said Manzoor Ahmad repeated/doubly charged the previous approved indents submitted by JEs of the Division, Handwara, into the Issue Account pertaining to the period Nov. 2003 to Nov. 2005 under which JEs had already received the material indented. The accused persons has made these entries in the issue account only to adjust the material misappropriated by him in connivance with Ex. Stock Assistant Mohammad Maqbool Wani of PHE Division, Handwara. There are some other facts quoted in the final report as allegations against accused. 12. Viewing the matter in the above backdrop, I am of the opinion that this Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as sought by the petitioner herein regarding his stand about the prosecution story or in returning any finding as to the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR and the substance of which has been referred into the charge framed against the petitioner. The facts as projected by the petitioner before this Court require an in-depth examination, which is possible only at the trial of case before concerned Court. It would be wholly inapt at this stage to conclude the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vexatious in nature and so to quash the proceedings referred supra. It may be also relevant herein to note that charge has already been framed against the petitioner herein by the trial Court. It would be wholly inapt at this stage to conclude the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vexatious in nature and so to quash the proceedings referred supra. It may be also relevant herein to note that charge has already been framed against the petitioner herein by the trial Court. It also needs to be borne in mind that FIR is more than a decade old and the trial has commenced against the accused including petitioner herein. How the petitioner reacted during the occurrence of investigation about the allegation referred above is not being indicated in the petition or precisely stated that the IO despite being made conversant about the non-involvement of petitioner, did not ponder over the facts projected herein. Rather Investigation Agency is categoric in stating that petitioner herein has been privy to exercise of misappropriation including that made on the basis of Gate Pass prepared of undelivered material. Therefore, the petition of petitioner entails dismissal and is, accordingly, dismissed, in limini.