1. PetitionerSI in police invokes inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C seeking to quash FIR No.269/2014 dated 28.11.2014 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under Sections 279/337/338 RPC.

2. In the petition, it is stated that the petitioner never involved herself with the commission of any offence, muchless an offence under Sections 279/337/338 RPC for alleged commission of which the petitioner has been directed to present herself in Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu in connection with filing of challan in FIR No.269/2014. It is further stated that an FIR No.269/2014 dated 28.11.2014 was registered in Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu alleging that a car Wagon-R bearing registration No.JK02AM-1161, which was being driven by an unidentified/unknown driver in a rash, careless and negligent manner from Bikram Chowk Jammu towards Satwari at about 3.30pm and that when it reached near Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu the offending vehicle hit an Eterno vehicle bearing registration No. JK02AD-6010 which was being driven by one Neeraj Vohra S/o Sh. Ved Parkash Vohra R/o F-5, Rani Park, Jammu and caused accident, as a result of which the aforesaid Neeraj Vohra, fell from his vehicle and suffered injuries in the accident, where after he was taken by the passersby to Govt. Medical Hospital Jammu where he was admitted for the grievous injuries suffered by him. It is further stated in the FIR that the driver of offending vehicle Wagon-R fled away from the scene of accident and in view of this offences under Section 279/337 RPC are alleged to have been made against the driver of the offending vehicle. There is not even a whisper in the FIR No.269/2014 that it was the petitioner, who was driving the offending vehicle (Car-Wagon-R) and that the accident was caused by negligent and rash driving by the petitioner. The investigation of the case was entrusted to the investigating officer, who recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and as per the report submitted by SHO Model P/S, Gandhi Nagar Jammu to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 10.12.2014, it was found during investigation that Wagon-R No.JK02AN-1161 was standing on the National Highway near Police Station Gandhi Nagar and the driver of Wagon-R was talking to someone and meanwhile a Eterno vehicle was coming from Bikram Chowk towards Satwari and as soon as the vehicle reached near the car, some Van bearing registration number not known and driver not known also coming from the same side hit the door of the Wagon-R on driver side, as a result of which the driver of the said Eterno fell down and was seriously injured and thereafter hospitalized. It is further stated that no evidence has come forth even during investigation that it was the petitioner who was driving the Van, which hit the vehicle Eterno on the driver side door of the standing vehicle (Wagon-R), as a result of which the vehicle driver fell down and was injured. The petitioner is posted at Sub-Inspector in Police Station Bari Brahmana, which is evident from copies of the Roznamcha Report of police station Bari Brahmana dated 28.11.2014 on which date, the petitioner was performing her official duty in connection with some cases registered in Police Station Bari Brahmana. It is further stated that so far so good, but suddenly, to the utter shock of the petitioner, a wireless message No.SDCS/17/2036 dated 21.02.2017 was received in the office of SSP Samba, directing the police to arrange the presence of the petitioner (Meena Sharma-SI P/S Bari Brahmana) in Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu on 23.02.2017 in connection with challan of the case FIR No.269/2014 under Sections 279/337/338 RPC of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu to be produced against the petitioner in the Court of law for judicial determination.

3. The petitioner aggrieved of the direction issued vide Signal No.SDCS/17/3036 dated 21.02.2017 directing the petitioner to appear in Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu in connection with Challan filed against the petitioner in the Court in FIR No.269/2014 under Section 279/337 RPC on the following grounds:

a) That the direction issued to the petitioner seeking her presence in connection with impugned FIR No.269/2014 dated 28.11.2014 registered by respondent for offences under Sections 279/337 RPC is illegal, bad and unconstitutional.

b) That the impugned FIR dated 28.11.2014 has been registered by respondent is required to be quashed, on yet another ground, inasmuch as, neither the FIR disclosing commission of any criminal offence by the petitioner, nor the name of the petitioner figures in the FIR and further during investigation of the case no evidence was disclosed by any witness that any of the vehicles, which were involved in the accident were either registered in the name of the petitioner or were being driven by the petitioner, muchless in negligent and rash manner.

c) That the direction in the above referred signal dated 21.02.2017 and the impugned FIR is required to be quashed, on yet another ground, inasmuch as, on the date of accident i.e 28.11.2014, the petitioner was posted as SI in Police Station Bari Brahmana Samba and was on official duty for whole of the day, which is evident from the copies of the relevant pages of the daily diary maintained in police Station Bari Brahmana.

4. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

i. allow the present writ petition;

ii. quash FIR being No.269/2014 dated 28.11.2014 registered by respondent.

iii. restrain the respondent from seeking the presence of the petitioner in Police Station Gandhi Nagar in connection with filing of Challan or fall any matter connected with FIR No.269/2014 dated 28.11.2014.

5. This Court vide order dated 15.03.2017, while issuing notice to the respondent, directed that till next date, production of the challan to await further orders from this Court. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.08.2017 this Court allowed MP No.2/2017 filed by Mr. F.A.Natnoo, Advocate, and the applicant mentioned in the application, namely, Neeraj Vohra was impleaded as party respondent No.2 in this petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, Ms. Syna Ashkoor Wani (Investigating Officer) and perused the case diary.

7. From the perusal of C/D file, it is evident that investigation is complete and only challan is required to be produced before Court of law.

8. The law with regard to quashment of FIR is now well settled. FIR can only be quashed in order to prevent abuse of process of law or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The expression ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of any court are intended to work out either when an innocent person is unjustifiable subjected to an undeserving prosecution or if an ex-facie all merited prosecution is throttled at the threshold without allowing the material in support of it.

9. While exercising the power under section 561-A Cr.P.C, this court does not function as court of trial, appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction has to be exercised disparity, careful and with great caution. These powers cannot be used to stifle the legitimate prosecution. This is discretionary power vested in High Court to do substantial justice. High Court cannot examine the evidence as to whether charge for alleged offence is made out or not. This is prerogative of trial court where challan is produced. Where accused has opportunity to advance submission before trial court that material on record does not call for framing of charge than High court shall not exercise power under section 561-A Cr.P.C.

10. In present case, it is not case of the petitioner that there is some legal bar engrafted in code of criminal procedure or in some other law with regard to presentation of challan.

11. Now whether on the basis of statements of witnesses recorded during investigation charge can be framed, is not within the domain of this Court while deciding the petition u/s 561-A Cr.P.C.

12. All the pleas taken in the petition and those argued may be relevant for discharge of accused, but not for quashing the FIR, because all the pleas are pertaining to appreciation of facts. In view of above discussion, this petition is dismissed. Interim stay, if any, is vacated. However, petitioner is at liberty to take all pleas of facts or law before Court below at the time of framing of charge.