K. RAMACHANDRIAH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is the second accusedin C. C. No. 2348/87 pending on the file of the VI Add ). Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore City. It is posted to 1-9-1990 for framing of charges. Allegations made against the petitioner and the other accused are that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 326 and 448 !pc on the allegations that the petitioner and the other accused criminally trespassed into the premises of the complainant Mohamed Amir Zehni at about 10-50 p. m. on 7-10-87 and assaulted him. Petitioner has filed this petition on 17-8-90 to quash all further proceedings in C. C. No. 2348/87 and to discharge him. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitionersubmitted that as per documents produced and marked as Annexure-M found at pages 48 to 50, petitioner, who is a foreigner, is permitted to reside in India till 31-8-1990 only and he has to leave the Country on or before the said date. It is also submitted that the petitioner has completed his studies and he would be subjected to great hardship and inconvenience if he has to stay in India beyond 31-8-90 in connection with C. C. 2348/87 pending against him at the stage of framing charges and that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said case alive as the first accused has already left the Country and the case is split against the petitioner-second accused and he came into picture of the said case when he was arrested and released on bail sometime in february, 1990. He further submitted that complainant has also left the Country in 1987 and one material witness who is cited to speak about the alleged incident is also not available. In my opinion, those are all not matters which this Court can take note of at this stage as it is for the prosecution to substantiate the allegations it has made against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. ( 4 ) SRI. Rego, learned Counsel for thepetitioner, placed strong reliance on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v Sambhaji Rao Chandrojirao angre and others ( AIR 1988 SC 709 ). In paragraph-7 at page 711 as under: "7. ( 4 ) SRI. Rego, learned Counsel for thepetitioner, placed strong reliance on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v Sambhaji Rao Chandrojirao angre and others ( AIR 1988 SC 709 ). In paragraph-7 at page 711 as under: "7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage". In my opinion, the said observations would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner as he has not approached this Court at the earliest opportunity for quashing the criminal proceedings. Even according to the petitioner, he was arrested in connection with the case on hand in February, 1990. But, he has chosen to file this Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. on 17-8-90. it is well settled that the benefit of Section 482 Cr. P. C. should not be extended to persons who do not approach the Court at the earliest possible opportunity. ( 5 ) AT this stage, the learned counselfor the petitioner, intervened and placed reliance on another decision of the supreme Court in State of U. P. Though C. B. I. S,p E. Lucknow and another v R. K. Srlvastava and others, wherein it is observed that "it is now a well settled principle of law that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute an offence, the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of such fir should be quashed. " As already mentioned above, the petitioner has not approached this Court at the earliest possible opportunity that was available to him to seek quashing of the proceedings in the above Criminal case. He has slept over the matter for nearly six months and has approached this Court for the above mentioned relief just before a few days of the expiry of his foreigner's permit to stay in the Country. The Criminal case is posted to 1-9-1990 to hear before framing the charges. It is open to the petitioner to urge before the Criminal Court that the allegations made in the FIR and the charge-sheet against him are insufficient to frame a charge and persuade that court to discharge him. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, Iam of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 cr. P. C. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition isdismissed with a direction to the VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore city, to dispose of C. C. No. 2348/87 as expeditiously as possible. Petition Dismissed. --- *** --- .