SHABIR AHMAD SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to quash FIR no. 2/2009 registered at Police Station JIC, Jammu under Sections ULA, 120-B and 121 RPC. The allegations contained in the FIR are that, on an information received by JIC, some foreign militants lodged in various jails of Jammu province have been instigated by the petitioner to wage a war against the State of India. On this report having been received, investigation was started and in this connection, Mushtaq Ahmad Lone S/O Ali Mohammad and Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar S/O Abdul Khaliq Dar were subjected to interrogation. In their statements they stated that they were instigated by the petitioner to fester the anti national activities.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that after his detention order was quashed, he was illegally detained in FIR no. 2/2009, which, according to him, was uncalled for and illegal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Exercise of power under Section 561A Cr.P.C in a case is an exception and not a rule. It does not confer any new powers on the Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before coming into force of the Code. Three circumstances must exist under which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised. These are:

(3.) Courts have inherent powers apart from expressed provisions of law, which are necessary for proper discharge of law. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide, has to be exercised sparingly when such exercise is justified by the tests specially laid down in the Section itself. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and any attempt made to abuse that authority, Court has the power to prevent such abuse. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. The inherent powers can be exercised only under three contingencies, namely: