D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. The petition can be finally disposed of at this stage. 2. The prayer in this petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. is for quashing the entire proceed ings in Criminal Case No. 539 of 1996 u/ss. 363, 366, 368 and 406 IPC pending in the court of CJM, Hathras, District Aligarh. 3. There is no specific prayer in the petition for quashing the chargesheets. Two chargesheets were submitted on two dif ferent dates, one against two accused Babloo and Anil and the other against the petitioner whose name is Nirmalla Devi alias Urmila. 4. FIR (Annexure-4 to the petition) has been examined. In this FIR Babloo and Anil are named as accused and prima facie commission of offence against them is dis closed in the FIR. 5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this FIR is mala fide and it discloses commission of no offence. Several documents have been filed to show that the prosecutrix was major on the date of occurrence and that she went in the company of two named offenders her own free will and in view of this consent, no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out because evidently the prosecutrix was major. 6. It was rightly objected by the learned AGA that the defence cannot be seen in proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has however cited two Supreme Court decisions in support of his contention that the defence can be seen even in these proceedings. 8. The first case is P. S. Rajya v. State of Bihar 1996 (4) Supreme 455 . I have carefully gone through this judgment and I am afraid that the Honble Supreme Court has anywhere laid down in this case that the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdic tion under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can look into the defence. On facts also this case is distinguishable. What happened in this case was that the appellant was departmentally chargesheeted. Departmental enquiry proceeded and the enquiry was conducted by Central Vigilance Commission. Detailed report was submitted which was considered by the Union Public Service Commission which agreed with the said report. The President of India also endorsed these two reports and ultimately the appellant in that case was exonerated. Departmental enquiry proceeded and the enquiry was conducted by Central Vigilance Commission. Detailed report was submitted which was considered by the Union Public Service Commission which agreed with the said report. The President of India also endorsed these two reports and ultimately the appellant in that case was exonerated. It was a case mainly regarding the valuation of the house alleged to have been constructed by the appellant from funds beyond his legitimate source of income. On the subsequent complaint, a criminal prosecution was also lodged. The criminal prosecution was challenged and it was alleged that since on the same charge, the appellant was departmentally ex onerated, there is no use in proceeding against him in the criminal prosecution. . This contention was accepted by the Honble Supreme Court and not that it was held that defence can be seen at this stage in a proceeding under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 9. The other case is Cosato Fernandez v. State of Bombay, 1996 JIC 562 (SC ). In this case also it was nowhere laid down that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can consider the defence of the accused petitioner. On the other hand, the question involved in this case was regarding claim of protection under Section 155 of Customs Act. The prosecution under S. 302, IPCwas quashed but not after considering the defence. More over it was a case of appeal and not of proceedings under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 10. The plea of consent and majority of the prosecutrix can be raised at the time of trial. Two chargesheets have been submitted after collecting evidence. The statement of prosecutrix under Section 161, Cr. P. C. shows that the petitioner was althrough present in her house and the prosecutrix was detained in the said house against her will for 8 to 10 days and was raped several times by Bobloo who is none else than the son of of the petitioner. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the submission of char-gesheets, inter alia under Section 368, IPC against the petitioner is not justified. 11. Regarding marriage of the prosecutrise with petitioners son Babloo, the statement of the prosecutrix under Sec tion 161, Cr. P. C. tells entirely a different story. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the submission of char-gesheets, inter alia under Section 368, IPC against the petitioner is not justified. 11. Regarding marriage of the prosecutrise with petitioners son Babloo, the statement of the prosecutrix under Sec tion 161, Cr. P. C. tells entirely a different story. Medical examination was not con ducted on the request of the police after recovery of the prosecutrix but it was a case of private medical examination. Conse quently these two different stands have to be examined by the trial court at length and not by this Court at this stage. 12. In the result, I do not find and good ground for quashing the chargesheets of for quashing the criminal case pending in the court of ACJM, Hathras, District Aligarh. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .