JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners through the medium of this petition seek quashment of FIR No. 122/2013 dated 09.10.2013, registered with Police Station, Janipur against them on the complaint of respondent No.1, for commission of offences under Sections 341, 506 RPC read with Sections 4/25 of Indian Arms Act. 2. As per the impugned FIR, a complaint was lodged by complainant, respondent No. 1 with Police Station, Janipur, Jammu, alleging therein that accused-petitioners herein, who were notorious criminals of the area, have committed a number of heinous crimes and various FIRs have been registered against them in various police Stations of Jammu District; that they have created a scene of terror in the society at large and nobody has come forward for making statements against them as they apprehend that they will be eliminated at any point of time by the accused persons; that some people of the area approached the complainant/respondent No. 1 herein, for bringing the matter to the higher Police authorities, so that they can be saved from the accused persons, as such he brought the matter to the notice of the higher authorities, for initiation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners, which made them furious and they were in search of occasion to eliminate the complainant. It was further alleged that petitioners threatened the complainant that in case process is initiated against them, they would kill him and his family members; that on 08.10.2013 at about 4.30 PM, when the complainant was coming back from the Court and at upper Paloura Jammu, both the accused persons all of a sudden came there, restrained him and threatened him to eliminate by exhibiting a Toka. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the impugned FIR came to be registered. 3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR primarily on the ground that the impugned FIR is an abuse of process of law as the same has been lodged for wreaking vengeance; that impugned FIR is lodged only with an intention to pressurize the petitioners not to state anything against the accused including respondent No. 1, in a case pending before the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and that the same has been registered in order to counter the challan pending against respondent No. 1 and others in the aforesaid court. 4. 4. Pursuant to notice, respondent/complainant filed reply, asserting that petition is misconceived, false, frivolous and bundle of lies, there being not an iota of truth as they have concealed material facts that both the petitioners are notorious criminals operating gangs in whole of Jammu Division. Till the year 2013, as per information received from SSP, Jammu, in RTI Act application, petitioner No. 1 was accused in eleven (11) cases, registered at different Police Stations of Jammu District, involving serious offences of attempt to murder, have trespass, use of prohibited arms etc. whereas petitioner No. 2 was involved in the five cases registered for the commission of serious offences from the year 1999 to 2013. It has also been pleaded that petitioner No. 1, Sohan Singh @ Sonu has also been detained by the District Magistrate Jammu under Police Safety Act, 1978, bases on his involvement in eight criminal cases, on 23.01.2021, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘Public Order’. 5. Respondent-State, pleaded that during the course of investigation iron toka had been recovered, on the disclosure of petitioner No. 2, Dalbir Singh @ Jagga and on the basis of the evidence/statement of evidence, the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/506/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act have been proved against both the petitioners/accused Sohan Singh @ Sonu and Dalbir Singh @ Jagga and investigation has been concluded into chargesheet. It was prayed that the petition, being misconceived, be dismissed and investigating agency be permitted to file the charge sheet before the court of law. 6. Mr. P. S. Parmar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has contended that impugned FIR is outcome of pressure tactics to snub the petitioners to restrain them to depose against respondent No. 1 and other accused in a challan arising out of FIR No. 94 of 2005 pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Jammu and that petitioner No. 1 on the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 08.10.2013 was suffering from high grade fever since 07.10.2013, which was diagnosed as Dengue fever and he remained confined to bed up to 16.10.2013. Learned counsel submits that had the petitioners intended to threaten respondent No. 1, they would have done it earlier to cause injuries or eliminate him. He accordingly prayed that impugned FIR be quashed. 7. Mr. Learned counsel submits that had the petitioners intended to threaten respondent No. 1, they would have done it earlier to cause injuries or eliminate him. He accordingly prayed that impugned FIR be quashed. 7. Mr. J. P. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, argued that petitioners are hardcore criminals, inasmuch as, 11 FIRs have been registered against petitioner No. 1 in different Police Stations, out of which, offences committed in 09 FIRs are of Arms Act and 05 FIRs have been registered against petitioner No.2. Learned counsel further submits that FIR lodged against the petitioners do suggest that the petitioners have committed offences under different penal sections and when the petitioners came to know that police is going to present challan, the present petition was filed so that police could not produce the challan against them. 8. Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned Dy. AG appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, submits that the present petition is not maintainable as it involves factual disputes which can be adjudicated by leading evidence and requires a full dressed trial by the court of law. He submits that during investigation, weapon of offence has been recovered on the disclosure of accused Dalbir Singh and offence committed by the petitioners have been proved against the accused persons. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned FIR and considered the matter. 10. So far as the scope of power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is now settled by various judicial precedents of the Supreme Court that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings has to be exercised sparingly only in deserving cases. The illustrations of such deserving cases have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported as 1993 Supp (1) SCC 335. The illustrations of such deserving cases have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported as 1993 Supp (1) SCC 335. These illustrations are encapsulated as under: “(a) 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; (b) 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; (c) 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; (d) where the allegations in the FIR 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; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR 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; (f) 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; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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.” 11. From the foregoing enunciation of law, it is clear that a criminal prosecution cannot be quashed by High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., unless it is shown that allegations and the material available on record do not constitute an offence against the accused. According to the petitioners, no offence is made out against them from the allegations made in the impugned FIR. 12. In order to test the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners, it would be necessary to have an overview of the allegations made in the impugned FIR against the petitioners. It has been alleged that accused-petitioners herein have created a sense of terror in the society at large and some people from the area approached the complainant/respondent No. 1 for bringing the matter to the higher Police authorities for initiation of criminal proceedings against them, on which the petitioners became furious and threatened the complainant that in case process is initiated against them, they will kill him and his family members. These allegations cannot be established without investigation. Another allegation that on 08.10.2013 at about 4.30 PM, when the complainant was returning from the Court and when he reached upper Paloura Jammu, both the petitioners all of a sudden came there and waylaid the complainant and threatened him of his life. The question that arises for determination is whether a person has been threatened would be sufficient enough to hold that offences under Section 506 RPC are made out against the accused. Section 506 RPC prescribes the punishment for offence of criminal intimidation and Section 503 RPC defines the offence criminal intimidation. Section 503 RPC reads as under: “503. Criminal intimidation.— Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.— A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. Explanation.— A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.” 13. A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that in order to satisfy the ingredients of the offence of criminal intimidation, there has to be a threat of injury to a person, reputation or property of the complainant by the accused, which should be with the intention to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do so. 14. In the instant case, it has been alleged by the complainant that he has been threatened of his life by the petitioners. The threat extended to the complainant is clearly discernible from the material placed on record. It is true that the entire matter is only at premature stage and investigation has not proceeded, therefore, it cannot be said that complaint should be thrown overboard, on the mere unsubstantiated pleas of malafides. Even assuming that the complainant has laid the complaint only on account of his personal animosity that by itself will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected. If the allegations are bereft of truth, the investigation will say so and shall be concluded into a closure report instead of charge-sheet. 15. The contention of the petitioners that respondent no. 1 had lodged the FIR with malafide intentions to pressurize them not to state anything against respondent No. 1 in a case pending before the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu where he is facing trial and petitioners are prosecution witnesses, for wreaking vengeance, same cannot be accepted as it is alleged in the impugned FIR that petitioners, being revengeful towards respondent No. 1 and his family, found occasion for causing vital injuries to respondent No.1, but with the intervention of nearby persons respondent No.1 was saved from the clutches of petitioners, otherwise, petitioners would have committed some serious offence. The allegations made in the impugned FIR do constitute a cognizable offence and same does not call for the exercise of extra-ordinary or inherent powers of High Court to quash the FIR itself. 16. The investigation of an offence is a field, exclusively reserved for the police officers and the Courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds. Another contention of the petitioners that on the date of alleged occurrence, petitioner No. 1 was suffering from high fever, cannot be gone into by this Court, as such, prescriptions annexed with the petition can normally be managed with an intention to make out ground to challenge the FIR. 17. Admittedly, the aforesaid list, as illustrated by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal’s case, is not exhaustive and Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction if circumstances demand the interference of this Court. Inherent powers of this Court can only be exercised when the Investigating agency has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter or the investigation is being carried out on malafides. In the above stated case, Apex Court had held that if a prosecution is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, the Court has got ample power to quash the aforesaid prosecution. 18. In the instant case, as already discussed, the material placed on record coupled with allegations made in the impugned FIR, do constitute a case for the commission of offences punishable under Section 506 RPC and the Arms Act as the ingredients as contained therein are satisfied. Viewed thus, there is no merit in the case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Respondents are directed to go ahead with the investigation of the case in accordance with law. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 20. The petition along with pending application(s) is, accordingly, dismissed.