ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C.) petitioners seek quashment of charge sheet/challan No. 29/16 dated 23.05.2016 in File No. 115/Challan presented on 06.06.2017 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and FIR No. 47/2016 dated 03.05.2016 registered against the petitioners for commission of offences under Sections 353, 323, 504 & 506 RPC. 2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 along with one Haji Mohammad Taqi was allotted EP H. No. 472 (measuring 3 Marlas 12 Sq. Ft.) situated at Talab Khatikan, Jammu. After his death, the petitioner No. 1 along-with one Showkat Ali was allotted the same. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is running a hotel under name and style M/s. Taj Hotel in front of the said land. The said structure over the land was being used for commercial purposes. It is further stated that the petitioner No. 1 along with Showkat Ali (Allottees) have been depositing yearly rent for E.P.H. No. 472 with the office of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, regularly for the past more than 50 years. It is further stated that at the time of yearly renewal of allotment in the year 1997 with regard to E.P.H. No. 472, the petitioner No. 1 and his brother approached the office of respondent No. 3 for deposition of the rent, but the same was deferred by the said respondents on the ground that renewal of allotment would be possible only when the rent for the premises would be enhanced. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 went into deep slumber, on one hand they did not enhance the rent at all and on the other did not even accept the rent from the petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the same would be accepted only after being enhanced retrospectively. It is stated that the J&K Government has initiated a road widening project from Rajinder Bazar to Talab Khatikan and for the said purpose, it was requisite that some commercial structures be realigned/demolished and the said road project included demolition of the building structures belonging to the petitioners as well situated on E.P.H. No. 472, to which the petitioners were never averse. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the respondent No. 2 in terms of its office communication No. RS-EP/472/618-20/2013 dated 02.12.2013 served a notice upon petitioner No. I whereby he was given one day to vacate EP H. No. 472. Talab Khatikan, Jammu so that the same can be dismantled/demolished. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 was running his business in the said building and it was impossible for him to suddenly vacate the same on such short notice served upon him in an illegal and unjustified manner, therefore, he immediately approached the respondent No. 2 and 3 who assured petitioner No. 1 that no such action would be taken against him. It is further stated that with regard to the road widening project, a meeting of various officials was convened on 11.03.2016, under the Chairmanship of ADC, Jammu wherein it was decided that the issue of road widening would be expedited and the individuals including the petitioner No. 1 would be suitably rehabilitated. Thereafter, another meeting was held on 24.03.2016 under the Chairmanship of ADC, Jammu wherein the rehabilitation of the petitioner No. 1 was main part of the agenda. It is stated that the minutes of the meeting envisage that the allotment of the petitioner No. I had already been cancelled on the basis of nonpayment of rent. It is submitted that on coming to know about the cancellation of allotment, the petitioner No. 1 again immediately approached the office of respondent No. 3 and he was assured that before any eviction is ordered against him, he would be rehabilitated suitably in a short span of time, process of which was already underway. On 03.05.2016 around 10-11 AM, the complainant along-with Assistant Custodian, Jammu, Additional Deputy Commissioner Jammu (Administration), Joint Director Municipality, Khilafwarzi officer, SDPO, respondent No. 1 and reinforcement of more than 200 police officials along with JCBs came onto the said property of the petitioner No. 1 i.e., EP H. No. 472 and forcibly trespassed into his property. On enquiring, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were verbally informed by the complainant that their building needs to be demolished for the road widening project. On enquiring, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were verbally informed by the complainant that their building needs to be demolished for the road widening project. The petitioner No. 1 repeatedly requested the complainant and other officials present on spot to at least show them the notice in pursuance to which they are demolishing their building, but the complainant and others, forcibly pushed the petitioner No. 1 to 3 out of the building area. Since the complainant party was mishandling the petitioner No. 1 to 3, the petitioner No. 4 who was passing by intervened and tried to stop them but the complainant party was very strong and threw them out on the pretext that since petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 had already been rehabilitated by the Evacuees Property Department and the complainant kept repeating the same over and over again. He openly declared that he had been directed by some political rival of the petitioner No. 1 to get the structures on EP H. No. 472 demolished. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 asked the complainant for documentary proof of alleged rehabilitation by the E.P. Department, he had no answer for the same. Petitioner nos. 1 to 3 were taken back to see so many police officials at their work place and before they would resort to any legal remedy, their entire structure/building situated over said land except one room was demolished. Feeling mentally agonized and harassed because of the unlawful and arbitrary action of the complainant and the concerned officials present on spot, petitioner No. 1 immediately approached the office of respondent No. 2 for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner No. 1 obtained a copy of order dated 30.11.2013 issued by the office of respondent No. 3 which envisaged that the allotment of the above stated Evacuee Property belonging to the petitioner No. 1 has been cancelled. The order further envisaged that no objection certificate has been issued by the Office of respondent No. 2 vide his Office No. CG (E.P.) 1575/2002 dated 20/02/2002 subject to the condition that compensation is paid to the Evacuees Department as per prevalent market rate in respect of the said land whereas the petitioner was never rehabilitated or paid any compensation in this regard. 4. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners further contends that petitioner No. 1, feeling aggrieved of cancellation order dated 30.11.2013 immediately challenged the same before the learned J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. The learned Special Tribunal in terms of its order dated 06.05.2016 called for the records and directed the parties to maintain status quo on spot. It is stated that with abrupt action on the part of respondents to cancel the allotment of the petitioner, had left him with no option except to approach the competent authorities with representations and thus, he represented to the concerned authorities, ultimately the then learned Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, namely, Sh. Simrandeep Singh I.A.S. submitted report which envisages that even after demolition of the structure/building over E.P.H. No. 472 in May, 2016, the petitioner No. 1 had not been suitably rehabilitated, which belies the stand of the complainant taken on the day of demolition that the petitioner No. 1 has already been suitably rehabilitated. It is further stated that despite the fact that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any crime, the complainant at the behest of the respondent No. 1 concocted a false, frivolous and baseless complaint against the petitioners vide No. TJ/OQ/130 dated 03.05.2016 in terms of which he requested the said respondent to lodge an FIR against them for allegedly causing interference in performance of duty. The respondent No. 1 has registered FIR No. 47/16 dated 03.05.2016 against the petitioners for commission of offences under Section 353, 323, 504 & 506 RPC. It is submitted that Challan/Charge-Sheet No. 29/16 dated 23/05/2016 in file no. 115/Challan has been presented on 06/06/2017 in the said FIR and the same is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. 5. The petitioners feeling aggrieved of the registration of impugned Challan and FIR have challenged the same on the following grounds:- (I) That a bare perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, FIR and Challan, even if are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not even prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners. (II) That the respondent No. 1 has not properly caused enquiry into the matter. Without going into veracity of the allegations they have submitted the impugned Challan whereas the alleged offences do not connect the involvement of the petitioners at any stage in commission of the same. (II) That the respondent No. 1 has not properly caused enquiry into the matter. Without going into veracity of the allegations they have submitted the impugned Challan whereas the alleged offences do not connect the involvement of the petitioners at any stage in commission of the same. (III) That a perusal of the contents of the complaint of the complainant and the FIR registered by the respondent No. 1 and Challan presented reveals contradictions, which is corroborative of the fact that the respondents are hand in glove with the complainant to somehow carve out a case against the petitioners by falsely implicating them in the impugned FIR despite the fact the petitioners have committed no crime. Thus the impugned FIR and Challan deserved to be quashed. (IV) That the impugned complaint, FIR and Challan is an afterthought and outcome of vengeance which has been wreaked upon the petitioners save their own skin. The respondents without serving any order upon the petitioners, without following due procedure of law defined in the Evacuees Property Act and without any lawful justification demolished the structures of the petitioners upon E.P.H. No. 472, which they were not empowered to do under law. Instead of rehabilitating the petitioners No. 1 to 3, they trapped the petitioners, who are innocent citizens, into criminal proceedings, which is sheer abuse of process of law and deserves to be set aside. (V) That the petitioner No. 4 is not known to the petitioners but he lives in the vicinity of the petitioners. Only because of the fact that he tried to stop the complainant from mishandling the petitioners, his name was also included in the array of alleged accused persons with the petitioners No. 1 to 3. The petitioners are law-abiding citizens of the State and have never committed any offence defined under any law of county till date and thus, deserve protection of law. (VI) That on the date of occurrence i.e. 03/05/2016 the respondent No. 1 was witness to the entire incident. In front of him the petitioner no. 2 repeatedly asked him and the complainant about order in terms of which demolition had been ordered by the competent authority (respondent No. 3 & 4) but the complainant kept repeating that since the petitioners No. 1 to 3 have been rehabilitated, the structures have to be demolished. In front of him the petitioner no. 2 repeatedly asked him and the complainant about order in terms of which demolition had been ordered by the competent authority (respondent No. 3 & 4) but the complainant kept repeating that since the petitioners No. 1 to 3 have been rehabilitated, the structures have to be demolished. The complainant pushed petitioners No. 1 to 3 out of their property but respondent No. 1 instead of maintaining peace, law and order on spot favoured the complainant in the most illegal, arbitrary and unjustified manner and did not take any action or arrest the complainant for mishandling the petitioners. This action of the respondents hand in glove with the complainant is grave miscarriage of justice prejudicing the rights of the petitioners, hence this petition. (VII) That a perusal of the complaint, FIR and Challan reveals that the complainant has repeatedly said that the petitioner No. 1 to 3 have been rehabilitated and even after rehabilitation they caused interference with his work. It is submitted that a perusal of Annexure C & D annexed with the petition reveals the complainant as well as the competent authorities were well aware about the fact that the petitioners No. 1 to 3 have not been rehabilitated, but still their structures have been demolished and that too without adopting due procedure established by law. The petitioners have not caused any interference into the work of the complainant as alleged by him. This is sheer miscarriage of justice which needs kind indulgence of the Hon'ble Court. (VIII) That on the fateful day of 03/05/2016 around 10-11 AM, the complainant along-with Assistant Custodian Jammu, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu (Administration), Joint Director Municipality, Khilafwarzi officer, SDPO, respondent No. 1 and reinforcement of more than 200 police officials along with JCBs came on to the said property of the petitioner No. 1 i.e. EP H. No. 472 and forcibly trespassed into his property. On enquiring, the petitioner No. 1 to 3 were orally informed by the complainant that their building needs to be demolished for the road widening project. The petitioner No. 1 repeatedly requested the complainant and other officials present on spot to at least show them the notice in pursuance to which they are demolishing their building, but the complainant and others, forcibly pushed the petitioner No. 1 to 3 out of the building area. The petitioner No. 1 repeatedly requested the complainant and other officials present on spot to at least show them the notice in pursuance to which they are demolishing their building, but the complainant and others, forcibly pushed the petitioner No. 1 to 3 out of the building area. Since the complainant party was mishandling the petitioner No. 1 to 3, the petitioner No. 4 who was passing by intervened and tried to stop them but the complainant party was very strong and threw them out on the pretext that since petitioner No. 1 to 3 had already been rehabilitated by the Evacuees Property Department and the complainant kept repeating the same over and over again. He openly declared that he had been directed by some political rival of the petitioner No. 1 to get the structures on EP H. No. 472 demolished. It is relevant here to mention that when petitioner No. 1 to 3 asked the complainant for documentary proof of alleged rehabilitation by the E.P. Department, he had no answer for the same. 6. I have considered the rival contentions; Counsel for petitioners has reiterated all grounds taken in memo of petition and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (9) SCC 150 , Shashikala and ors. Vs. Gangalakshmamma and Anr.; (2012) 13 Supreme Court Cases 614, Satish Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another; and 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, State of Haryana and ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Madras High Court in case titled Ranipet vs. Vasantha and Ors., CMA No. 2710 of 2006 decided on 12.04.2019. 7. Whereas counsel for respondent has argued that petitioners have raised disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon in this petition. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of the matter. The complaint lodged by Tehsildar, Jammu on 03.05.2016 to P/S Peer Mitha on the basis of which FIR was lodged reads as under:- "OFFICE OF THE TEHSILDAR JAMMU To The S.H.O. P/S Peer Mitha. Subject:- Lodging FIR for causing interference in performance of duty. Sir, A road widening project is started from Rajinder Bazar to Khatikan Talab. The structures coming in the said widening have already been compensated/rehabilitated. Subject:- Lodging FIR for causing interference in performance of duty. Sir, A road widening project is started from Rajinder Bazar to Khatikan Talab. The structures coming in the said widening have already been compensated/rehabilitated. However during execution following persons caused interference in performance of official duty and created law and order problem on spot:- 1. Ashiq Hussain 2. Zeshan 3. Kamran 4. Harbans Gurmeet Singh. In this regard you are requested to lodge FIR against these persons. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Tehsildar Jammu No:-TJ/OQ/130 Dt. 3/5/2016 " 9. Police on the basis of said complaint, lodged FIR No. 47/2016 under Sections 353/504/506 RPC and started the investigation and after completion of the same, filed challan before competent court on 06.06.2017; petitioners instead of arguing the matter on question of charge has filed this petition on the facts mentioned in the petition. 10. Exercise of power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is the exception and not rule- Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under this section may be exercised:- 1. To give effect to an order under the Code. 2. To prevent abuse of the process of Court. 3. To otherwise secure the ends of justice. 11. Bare perusal of this section makes it clear that the provisions of the Code are as intended to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Courts. Obviously the inherent power can be exercised only for any of the three purposes specifically mentioned in the section. This inherent power cannot naturally be invoked in respect of any matter covered by the specific provisions of the Code. It is only if the matter in question is not covered by any specific provision of the Code then this section can come into operation, subject further to the requirement that the exercise of such power must serve either of the three purposes mentioned in the said section. 12. It is only where the High Court is satisfied either that an order passed under the Code would be rendered ineffective or that the process of any court would be abused or that the ends of justice would not be secured, the power under this section can be used. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases which may possibly arise. 13. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases which may possibly arise. 13. Under section 561 A Cr.P.C., High court does not conduct a trial or appreciate evidence or function as court of appeal or revision. This power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. While exercising powers under Section 561-A of the Cr. P.C. the Court has to keep in mind that it should not ordinarily embark upon any legal order passed by any Court. 14. In present case, all the grounds taken in petition are pertaining to appreciation of facts, which this court cannot appreciate in detail. Petitioners have failed to apprise the court as to what is legal bar engrafted in any law for police to investigate the matter and produce challan before court below. All the grounds taken in memo of petition are defenses which accused persons have to establish during course of trial before court below. The law cited by counsel for petitioners is not applicable in present case as facts are totally different. Firstly facts are to be seen then law made on particular facts of a case is to be applied. 15. So petitioners have not made out any case for quashing the FIR which has already been culminated into filing of charge sheet before court below. Hence, this petition is dismissed along with all connected MPs, if any.