Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-By this petition under Section 482, CrPC the petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 28.09.2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No. 93/2005 and order dated 12.08.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jodhpur in FR Case No. 97/2004 whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 376 and 323, IPC. 2. It is true that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, CrPC, to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of Court, the Court can quash the order of cognizance or the FIR but duty is cast on the Court to see whether on the basis of the material on record prima facie case is made out or not. The discretion must be exercised with sufficient caution. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards statement recorded under Section 161, CrPC as well as certain other documents which are on record alleging that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 4. I have perused the statement of prosecutrix also. It is settled law that if a woman files any complaint disclosing facts of some wrong having been done to her, police investigation must follow. In this case, the police after investigation filed FR in the matter; but, thereafter protest petition has been filed by the petitioner inviting attention of the Court to the incriminating material on record on the basis of which cognizance ought to have been taken against the petitioner. The order impugned has been passed after considering the entire record as well as the protest petition and there is no illegality in it. I have also gone through the Judgment cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner, reported in 2005, CrLR SC 295, in which the Supreme Court held that at the time of passing orders of cognizance, the Magistrate is required to consider the report of the police and entire record of the case. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainant Mr. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainant Mr. H.M. Saraswat invited my attention towards the FIR as well as so-called compromise which is said to have been made in between the parties on 10.09.2004 itself and it is pointed out that it is written by Jugal Kishore, petitioner himself and in the FIR it is stated by Smt. Rajudevi, complainant that certain signatures were obtained when she approached the Police Station Mandore. I have also gone through the said compromise. It is contended by Mr. Saraswat that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner which has been taken into account by the learned Court below while taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. He contended that the learned revisional Court also refused to interfere in the matter and, therefore, evidently both the Courts below have concurrently satisfied themselves with the facts and circumstances of the case. It is argued by Mr. Saraswat that even the application for anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner under Section 438, CrPC was rejected after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482, CrPC and in the propriety of the power under Section 482, CrPC no interference is warranted in the present case. 6. Obviously, the learned revisional Court has also applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and after appreciation of the material on record has come to the conclusion that there is material on record including the statement of the prosecutrix for not interfering in the order of the trial Court taking cognizance against the petitioner. The position that emerges in the facts and circumstances of the case is that in the interest of justice and to secure the ends of justice this petition cannot be accepted. 7. Consequently, the petition moved under Section 482, CrPC is dismissed.