Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, JJ. ( 1 ) THE hearing stems from an application under Section 401 read with section 482, Cr. P. C. filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the proceeding being C. R. Case No. 239/2001 under Sections 366/376/379/384/323, I. P. C. and all orders passed therein, pending in the Court of learned Judicial magistrate, 3rd Court, Hooghly. ( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to the, above application are that on 25. 10. 2000 Krishna Chandra Mal, husband of the O. P. filed a complaint being c. R. Case No. 440/2000 under Sections 380/498, I. P. C. against the petitioner and O. P. inter alia alleging that on 20. 10. 2000 the O. P. keeping her minor child at the house of neighbour Nakul Chandra Ghosh had fled away with the petitioner after taking cash of Rs. 20,000/- and gold ornaments of about 18 bharis from the almirah and they were moving at a different places. The O. P. and the petitioner after their appearance in the said case were enlarged on bail. After examination of a few witnesses the O. P. filed a petition under Section 133 of the Evidence Act praying for permission to adduce evidence on behalf of the complainant which was rejected and the petitioner was discharged from the case on 28. 09. 2001 under Section 245 (1) Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) THE O. P. filed the said complaint being C. R. Case No. 239/2001 on 15. 6. 2001 inter alia alleging that the petitioner being a close friend of her husband used to visit her house frequently and stay there in the absence of her husband. On 3rd Kartick, 1407 B. S, on the representation of the petitioner that her husband who had gone to sultangacha for bringing the price of paddy, had met with an accident, for which Rs. 70,000/- was required, she left with the petitioner keeping her child in the house of her neighbour and taking Rs. 20,000/- and gold ornaments of 18 bharis from almirah. 70,000/- was required, she left with the petitioner keeping her child in the house of her neighbour and taking Rs. 20,000/- and gold ornaments of 18 bharis from almirah. The petitioner took her to different places, took the said cash and ornaments, threatened her with dire consequences, co-habited with her against her will and obtained her signatures on blank paper and ultimately she was recovered from Kalna on 22nd Kartick, 1407 B. S. After examining witnesses the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 366/376, i. P. C. and issued warrant against the petitioner. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by continuation of the said proceeding, the petitioner has come up before this Court. ( 5 ) MR. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the o. P. stayed with his client days after days and there was cohabitation and since suddenly she turned her face round and filed the said complaint after a lapse of about nine months of her return, it speaks of embellishment and on this ground alone the proceeding is not maintainable. Mr. Ghosh further contended that without following the conditions laid down in Clause (a) or (b)of Section 87, Cr. P. C. for issuing warrant of arrest, the learned Court below issued warrant of arrest against his client, which is not permissible. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the O. P. , on the other hand, submitted that there being no material, the present application should be dismissed in limine. ( 6 ) QUASHING of proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice may be done where: (1) it appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged e. g. absence of requisite sanction, or (2) the allegations in the F. I. R. or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged, or (3) the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 . It is to be borne in mind that the power to quash an FIR by this Court can be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. At this stage the Court cannot inquire about reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR nor it can inquire whether the allegations are likely to be established or not, as was held in the case of M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2004 SCC (Cr) 118 at 123. ( 7 ) IN the present case, a glance to the materials available in the record, a prima facie case under Sections 366/376, I. P. C. appears to have been made out. ( 8 ) AS regards order issuing warrant of arrest at the first instance, it is permissible under Clause (b) of Section 204 (1) of the Code, and all it depends upon the discretion of the Magistrate. The revisional Court will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion unless it is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. That apart, it is no ground for quashing the proceeding. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, in the light of the above discussion, the present application being devoid of any merit be dismissed.