JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned in the present petition filed by the petitioners under Section 561-A Cr. PC is an FIR No. 211/2018 dated 06.08.2018 registered at Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu, against them under Sections 427, 336, 354, 147, 148 and 109 of the Ranbir Panel Code. 2. The facts of the case in brief, as narrated by the petitioners in the present petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is an owner in possession of land measuring 06 kanals 15 marlas under lying khasra No. 260, situated at Narwal Bala, Jammu and in some portion of the said land, he had raised construction of a house and 06 kanals of land is lying vacant and duly fenced. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of sale deed dated 16.12.2005 as well as a mutation, which claims to have been attested in his favour and also in favour of his father. It is the case of the petitioners that on 05.08.2018, petitioner No. 1 had deployed men and machinery in the aforesaid land for raising construction over the vacant land and all of a sudden, the respondent No. 2 (complainant), along with his wife and one of his accomplice, namely Sh. Balkar Singh appeared on spot accompanied by some anti-social elements and started creating nuisance by uttering un-parliamentary language and threatened the petitioner No. 1 to stop the construction activity. It has been pleaded by the petitioners that respondent No. 2 also abused and assaulted the labour and tried to damage the machinery installed on spot. It has further been pleaded that all of a sudden, people from neighbourhood including petitioners 2 to 5 came and tried to pacify the situation, but, respondent No. 2, arrogantly kept on abusing the petitioners including the females present on spot and was staking illegal claim over the land of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners claim to have filed a written complaint to respondent No. 1 on 05.08.2018 itself. The petitioners further claim that instead of lodging an FIR against the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 lodged the FIR No. 211/2018 against the petitioners which is impugned in the present petition. 3. The petitioners claim to have filed a written complaint to respondent No. 1 on 05.08.2018 itself. The petitioners further claim that instead of lodging an FIR against the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 lodged the FIR No. 211/2018 against the petitioners which is impugned in the present petition. 3. The petitioners have challenged the FIR impugned on the ground that a bare perusal of the same does not disclose the commission of an offence and the story, as projected by respondent No. 2 is a concocted story and based upon utter falsehood as the land mentioned in the impugned FIR is the proprietary land of the petitioner No. 1 which, as claimed by him, is evident from the documents placed in the present petition. The petitioners further submitted that the respondent No. 2 has no right whatsoever on the land the details of which have been mentioned in the impugned FIR. 4. In the back ground of the aforesaid facts and grounds as pleaded in the petition, it is prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed. 5. This Court, vide order dated 13.08.2018, while issuing notice to the respondents, ordered that the investigation in the case might go on, but, challan should not be produced till next date of hearing. Subsequently, this Court directed the respondent No.1 to file status report regarding the investigation conducted in the impugned FIR. 6. Respondent No. 1 has filed the status report in which it has been pleaded that during investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared the site plan, seized the damaged vehicle of respondent No. 2. The JCB was also seized and given on ordinary superdnama. It has also been stated that the injured were got medically examined and one piece of broken teeth of the injured respondent No. 2 was also seized. The statements of the witnesses under Section 161-A Cr. PC have also been recorded. It has also been stated that the medical report of all three injured persons had been collected upon which, offence under Section 325 RPC was added on medical report and prima facie offences under Sections 427/323/325/352/147/148/109 RPC have been established against the accused who were at large after committing the crime and a manhunt/search to arrest these accused has been launched. 7. Respondent No. 2 has also appeared and filed objections to the present petition. 7. Respondent No. 2 has also appeared and filed objections to the present petition. He has pleaded that the petitioners have no right or title whatsoever on the land comprising of khasra No. 260 situated in village Narwal Bala, Jammu. On 05.08.2018, the petitioners attacked the respondent No. 2 with lathis, sharp edged weapons, stones and wooden logs. It has also been pleaded that when the wife of respondent No. 2 tried to save his life, the petitioners and others grabbed her, abused her, torn her clothes, molested her and dragged her with an intention to sexually assault her. It has further been pleaded that when one Sh. Balkar Singh saw the aforesaid incident, he tried to rescue the respondent No. 1 and his wife from the hands of the petitioners. But they (petitioners) attacked him as well. When all three, somehow managed to escape from the clutches of the petitioners, they (petitioners) followed them towards the car of the respondent No. 2 and attacked them with stones, bricks, iron rods and wooden logs and totally damaged the car as well. It has also been pleaded that all the three victims of the aforesaid crime have suffered serious injuries. It is submitted that the front teeth of respondent No. 2 has been broken by the petitioners. He has suffered injuries on his face, head and eye as well. The wife of the respondent No. 2 and said Sh. Balkar Singh have also suffered serious injuries. The respondent No. 2 has further pleaded that the aforesaid crime has been committed by the petitioners at the instance of one Mohd Yousef who is stated to be the brother of petitioner No. 1. It is also stated that said Mohd Yousef is a habitual offender and a history sheeter. So far as the land, the details of which have been given in the impugned FIR is concerned, it has been pleaded that the petitioners have no right in the same. Said Sh. Mohd Yousef (real brother of petitioner No. 1) and his father Sh. Fakar Din instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned 1st Civil Subordinate Judge (Municipal Magistrate), Jammu against as many as 10 persons including one Sh. Said Sh. Mohd Yousef (real brother of petitioner No. 1) and his father Sh. Fakar Din instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of learned 1st Civil Subordinate Judge (Municipal Magistrate), Jammu against as many as 10 persons including one Sh. Manjeet Singh (brother-in-law of respondent No. 2), S. Harbans Singh (uncle of respondent No. 2) and S. Amarjeet Singh (uncle of respondent No. 2) with regard to the same land. It is pleaded that the aforesaid sale deed dated 16.12.2005 and other sale deeds were the subject matter of adjudication before the Court. Said Sh. Mohd Yousef and Sh. Fakar Din were relying upon the aforesaid sale deeds. Order dated 07.11.2013 passed by learned Municipal Magistrate (1st Civil Subordinate Judge), Jammu has been placed on record whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiffs therein has been dismissed. The order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu has also been placed on record whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs therein against the aforesaid order dated 07.11.2013 has also been dismissed. It is pleaded that the aforesaid judgment has attained finality and the suit has also been dismissed. It has also been pleaded that said S. Manjeet Singh (defendant No. 5 in the suit), who is the real brother of wife of respondent No. 2 and brother-in-law of respondent No. 2 has given the possession of the land to the wife of respondent No. 2. Photographs of the injuries inflicted on the person of victims have also been annexed with the objections. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sheikh Najeeb Advocate has vehemently argued that the registration of the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be quashed. He further argued that it was respondent No. 2, who had trespassed into the land of the petitioner No. 1 and that respondent No. 2 has no right or title into the land, the details of which have been mentioned in the impugned FIR. The counsel for the petitioners has strongly relied upon the sale deed dated 16.12.2005 which is part of the record. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the official respondent, Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate argued that perusal of the impugned FIR discloses commission of serious offences and that during investigation, the offences against the petitioners have been proved. The counsel for the petitioners has strongly relied upon the sale deed dated 16.12.2005 which is part of the record. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the official respondent, Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate argued that perusal of the impugned FIR discloses commission of serious offences and that during investigation, the offences against the petitioners have been proved. He further submitted that the investigation in the case is complete, but, because the interim order dated 13.08.2018 passed by this Court, the challan could not be produced before the competent court. He prayed for the dismissal of the present petition. 10. Mr. R. K. S. Thakur Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 (complainant) has vehemently argued that the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. He also argued that the perusal of the impugned FIR discloses serious allegations against the petitioners and that this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, cannot act as a trial court to decide as to whether the offences have been actually committed by the petitioners or not. Mr. Thakur has also refuted the claim of the petitioner No. 1 who claims to be the owner in possession of the land, the details of which have been mentioned in the FIR impugned. He argued that the petitioners have taken a self-defeating stand in the petition. While arguing, he took the attention of this court to the sale deed dated 15.12.2005 relied upon and annexed by the petitioners with the instant petition. He stated that the aforesaid sale deed has been executed in favour of said Mohd Yousef, who is the real brother of the petitioner No. 1 and not in favour of petitioner No. 1. He further argued that said Sh. Mohd Yousef and his father have also lost the civil suit with regard to the same land. Lastly, he prayed that the instant petition is abuse of process of court and deserves to be dismissed with costs. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The law with regard to exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High court under Section 561-A Cr. PC which correspondents to Section 482 of the Central Code, is well settled. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The law with regard to exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High court under Section 561-A Cr. PC which correspondents to Section 482 of the Central Code, is well settled. This Section was added by the Legislature in the Code of Criminal Procedure as the High Courts were unable to render complete justice even if in a given case, the illegality was palpable and apparent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs Muniswami reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 held that the Section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Courts namely “to give effect to an order under Cr. PC, to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and to secure the ends of justice”. 13. This Section is a reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. Inherent powers under this Section include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before any judicial authority or with police. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the code, depending upon the facts of a given case. 14. It is also a settled position of law that if a complaint discloses commission of an offence, this court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, would not interfere into the investigation of the case and would permit investigation into the offence alleged, to be completed. If, however, the materials do not disclose commission of an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted and this court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, can quash the FIR, complaint or any criminal proceeding pending before any court. Any investigation, in absence of an offence being disclosed, would result in unnecessary harassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. (see State of West Bengal Vs Swapan Kumar Guha AIR 1982 SC 949 . 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a much celebrated and a land mark judgment titled State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 has discussed in detail, the provisions of Section 482 Cr. (see State of West Bengal Vs Swapan Kumar Guha AIR 1982 SC 949 . 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a much celebrated and a land mark judgment titled State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 has discussed in detail, the provisions of Section 482 Cr. PC and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 107 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines to be followed by the High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint, FIR or any other criminal proceeding before any court. Paragraph 107 of the judgment (supra) is relevant which is reproduced below: - “107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter-XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 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 F.I.R 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. 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 F.I.R 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 F.I.R 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 malafide 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”. The aforesaid judgement has been followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of its subsequent judgments. This court, in a recent judgment titled Harmohinder Singh and another Vs State of J&K and others reported in 2019 (3) JKJ (HC) 105 has also reiterated the aforesaid settled position of law. 16. Reliance was also placed by Mr.Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled Sherish Hardenia and others Vs State of M.P. and another reported in 2014 (14) SCC 406 in which it has been held that only in the absence of a prima facie case against the accused, the court can quash the criminal proceedings. Para 3 of the judgement (supra) is relevant which his reproduced below: - “Whether it is quashing of an FIR or a charge sheet, or summoning a party under Section 319, criminal procedure Code, this court has repeatedly opined that the approach of the judge must be to consider whether the collected material and evidence is indicative of existence of merely a prima facie case. It is only where there is absence of even a prima facie case that the judge would be justified in cancelling the FIR, or quashing the charge sheet, or declining the summoning of a third person under Section 319 Cr. PC”. 17. Following the above well settled position of law, the facts of the present case are required to be appreciated. It is to be seen as to whether the ingredients as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s judgment (supra) are attracted in the present case. For facility of reference, the relevant extract of the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2, which has been reproduced in the FIR impugned, is reproduced herein below:- “That today around 12.30, I accompanied by my wife namely Savtanter Kour visited all land situated at Narwal Bala,, Jammu under khasra No.260. When we reached at the spot we saw 10-15 person assembled at our land with a JCB machine and were demolishing our pacca constructions. When I asked them to stop all the accused made a fourise mordacious attacked on me with lathis, sharp edge weapons, stones and wooden logs one of them hit me on my face with a stone and resulting breaking my front teeth and injury my eye and face. When my wife tries to save my life, the accused grabbed her, abused her, torn her cloths, molested her and dragged her with the intention to sexually assault her. My friends my Balbar Singh S/o Ravail Singh who was incidentally passing by saw us and come to rescue my wife from the dirty clutches of the accused. He too was attacked by the accused with a sharp edge weapons one of them tried to stab him with a sharp edge weapon but he very bravely defend his life in the process to sustain grievous injury in the form of a deep cut on left hand and a serious inside injury on left ear creating difficulty in hearing. That we somehow run and reach our car bearing Reg No. JK02BB-5030 (Swift desire) but the accused followed us with the intention to kill us all and attacked car with stone bricks, iron rods and wooden logs the accuse totally damaged my car, we ran to save our life from the murderous attack and very bravely reached police post Bathindi. 18. 18. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint clearly discloses the commission of a non-cognizable offence. The allegations leveled in the FIR are quite serious in nature and deserves to be put to test in a criminal trial. This court cannot sit as a court of trial to investigate into the genuineness of the serious allegations that have been leveled in the complaint. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that he, his wife and one Balkar Singh were beaten by the petitioners by using lathis, stones, sharp edged weapons, wooden logs etc. He has also stated that as a result of such beating, all three have suffered serious injuries on their person. He has stated that he has suffered injuries on his face, head and eye. His front teeth has also been broken by the accused. He has also stated that his wife was also beaten, molested and dragged by the accused. The car of the respondent No. 2 has also been totally damaged by the accused. The stand of respondent No. 2 (complainant) is further strengthened from the status report filed by the official respondents in which it has been stated that during investigation, the offences against the accused have been proved. The medical examination of the victims of the incident has also been conducted after which the offence under Section 325 RPC has also been added against the accused. In this way, all the ingredients of the offence having been committed are found from the complaint and the FIR impugned. It cannot, in any manner, be said that the FIR impugned or the complaint does not disclose commission of an offence by the accused/ petitioners calling upon this court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. 19. Otherwise also, I am not able to find favour with the stand of the petitioner No. 1 that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 6 kanals 15 marlas comprising of khasra No. 620 situated at Narwal Bala, Jammu. As pointed out by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, perusal of sale deed dated 16.12.2005 relied upon and annexed by the petitioners with the instant petition reveals that the same has been executed in favour of Mohd Yousef, brother of petitioner No.1 and not in favour of petitioner No. 1. As pointed out by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, perusal of sale deed dated 16.12.2005 relied upon and annexed by the petitioners with the instant petition reveals that the same has been executed in favour of Mohd Yousef, brother of petitioner No.1 and not in favour of petitioner No. 1. Further, on perusal of the judgments dated 07.11.2013 and 15.03.2016 passed by the Municipal Magistrate (1st Civil Subordinate Judge), Jammu and Principal District Judge, Jammu respectively and other documents annexed by respondent No. 2 with his objections clearly shows that neither petitioners No. 1 nor his brother and father have any right whatsoever on the aforesaid land. It is also stated that the aforesaid judgments have attained finality and that the suit has also been dismissed subsequently. 20. For all what has been discussed above, there is no merit in the instant petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CM(s). Interim order dated 13.08.2018 shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.