ORDER : Rajnesh Oswal, J.-Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order dated 08.01.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu in a complaint titled “Ram Lal Vs. Sant Ram”, bearing FIR No.06/2016 dated 11.01.2016 and Challan No. 12 of 2017 dated 08.02.2017 for the commission of offence under Sections 409 and 420 RPC. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of present petition are that: The respondent No.2 herein had filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation wherein he has stated that the petitioner is an authorized dealer of supply of ration for village Rangpur Sadhrey, R.S Pura, Jammu and the respondent No.2 has narrated the following irregularities committed by the accused: a. That the said accused has issued fake ration cards on the name of people which do not exist on spot. b. That the said accused person has issued more than one ration card on the name of one and same person as is evident from the disbursement register of the month July 2015 e.g. i. Entry no. 32, 33 & 336 are shown on the name of one person namely Koushalya Devi W/o Om Parkash R/o Village Rangpur Sadhrey R.S Pura Jammu. ii. Entry no. 257 & 493 are shown on the name of one person namely Sushil Kumar S/o Late Isher Dass R/o Village Rangpur Sadhrey R.S. Pura Jammu being ration card no. 21. iii. Entry no. 160 & 181 are shown on the name of one person namely Bachan Lal S/o Om Parkash R/o Rangpur Sadhrey R.S. Pura being ration card no. 454. c. That the said accused has issued the ration to the consumers not as per the scale prescribed for them by the government with regard to the number of family members of each consumer. Thus disbursing less ration then the scale provided for a particular family. d. That the accused has not issued ration (sugar) to the consumers altogether for many months but the register of monthly disbursement shows that he has disbursed the whole of ration collected by him from the Govt. Deport to the consumers whereas the ration cards of the said consumers reveals that they never received the ration (sugar) for many months. d. That the accused has not issued ration (sugar) to the consumers altogether for many months but the register of monthly disbursement shows that he has disbursed the whole of ration collected by him from the Govt. Deport to the consumers whereas the ration cards of the said consumers reveals that they never received the ration (sugar) for many months. This clearly shows that the said accused has misappropriated the ration not disbursed to the consumers and is involved in black marketing of the same. e. That many ration card holders who have migrated to other places or who never got any ration from the said dealer were also shown to be disbursed to them. f. That the accused person did not disburse the free relief ration to be disbursed at the scale of 35 kg (20 kg atta and 15 kg rice) per month for 5 months i.e. from April to August 2015 to: i. Ram Lal applicant herein. ii. Bachan Lal S/o Ami Chand R/o Nai Basti Rangpur Sadhrey R.S Pura Jammu. The accused has not provided 50kg of ration to Ram Lal and 72 kg of ration to Bachan Lal till date, whereas the register for receiver and disbursement shows that he has disbursed the relief ration to the said consumers. It is further stated that the petitioner herein has been indulging in black marketing of subsidized ration and with regard to this many complaints have been filed by the local inhabitants of the village those were also reflected in the newspapers. On the said application, the learned CJM, Jammu directed the Station House Officer, R.S Pura to enquire into the matter and after enquiry if any, cognizable offence has been found to have been committed then register FIR and proceed under law. The SHO of concerned Police Station after receipt of the application and after enquiry found that the cognizable offence has been committed and as such registered FIR No.6/2016 on 11.01.2016. After the conclusion of the investigation, the Challan bearing No.12/2017 dated 08.02.2017 for commission of offence under Section 409/420 RPC was filed before the Court of learned Munsiff R.S Pura, Jammu. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition on the following main grounds: i) That the order dated 08.01.2016 was illegal and no FIR could have been registered on the basis of the same. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition on the following main grounds: i) That the order dated 08.01.2016 was illegal and no FIR could have been registered on the basis of the same. ii) That the criminal proceedings have been initiated by the respondents with malafide as the petitioner No.1 had filed a writ petition bearing OWP No.161/2015 wherein the order dated 08.01.2015 issued in favour of respondent No.2 for supply of ration was stayed by this Court and because of this ill will, the respondent No.2 has initiated the criminal proceedings. 4. On notice, the response has been filed wherein the factual aspects have been narrated. It has been stated that after the conclusion of the investigation the offences under Section 409/420 RPC were proved against the petitioner and the challan has been produced before the JMIC, R.S. Pura, Jammu. 5. Mr. Asheesh Singh Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made in the petition and further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not associated the beneficiaries as witness in order to prove the guilt against the accused. 6. Per contra, Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG has vehemently argued that the FIR was registered after due enquiry and as the application discloses the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner. He further submitted that the proceedings cannot be quashed only on the ground of malafide particularly when the allegations in the FIR have been established by the Investigating Officer. 7. Heard and considered. 8. It is evident from the record that there is no disbursement of ration made in the name of Ram Lal S/o Om Parkash R/o Rangpur Sidher, R.S Pura, Jammu from the month of January 2015 to July 2015. Simultaneously, no disbursement of ration was made in the name of Krishan Lal S/o Om Parkash R/o Rangpur Sidher, R.S Pura, Jammu from January, 2015 to July, 2015. Likewise no disbursement was made to Bachan Lal S/o Ram Singh S/o Om Parkash R/o Rangpur Sidher, R.S Pura, Jammu for the month of January, 2015 February, 2015 and April, 2015 and further irregularities were found in disbursement of ration in the name of Puran Chand S/o Ganga Ram S/o Om Parkash R/o Rangpur Sidher, R.S Pura, Jammu. 9. Likewise no disbursement was made to Bachan Lal S/o Ram Singh S/o Om Parkash R/o Rangpur Sidher, R.S Pura, Jammu for the month of January, 2015 February, 2015 and April, 2015 and further irregularities were found in disbursement of ration in the name of Puran Chand S/o Ganga Ram S/o Om Parkash R/o Rangpur Sidher, R.S Pura, Jammu. 9. Further it is established the register of disbursement of ration (sugar) shows that the ration (sugar) is disbursed but in reality the ration (sugar) is not disbursed in a proper way and it was further established during the course of investigation that accused person is preparing false record and the ration is not being disbursed to the village people. 10. There are serious allegations against the petitioner and the FIR was rightly registered after due enquiry as the commission of cognizable offences were prima facie found to be established by the concerned police and after the conclusion of the investigation, the Challan was filed against the petitioner before JMIC, R.S. Pura. 11. The order dated 08.01.2016 passed by learned CJM, Jammu cannot be deemed to have been caused any irreparable loss or injury to the petitioner and it was only when after enquiry the allegations were established against the petitioner, the FIR was registered. 12. The other contention of the petitioner that the proceedings were initiated by respondent No.2 with malafide, cannot be a ground for quashing of the instant proceedings. The respondent No.2 may have ill will against the petitioner but once from the record it is established that the petitioner has committed the offence then the proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of malafide as such this contention of the petitioner is rejected. 13. The last contention of the petitioner that no beneficiaries were cited as witnesses cannot be considered at this stage. The petitioner can raise all these pleas before the learned trial Court. 14. In view of all what has been discussed above, this Court does not any find any reason whatsoever to show any indulgence or interference in the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. As such, the present petition is dismissed.