Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has challenged order 13.4.2012 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 16 of 2012, under Sections 302, 147, 31/34 IPC arising out of case Crime No. 72 of 2010 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prtapgarh. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case due to political enmity. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on several annexures to substantiate his arguments. 5. In the judgment of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Cri.L.J. page 527 Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the scope of the powers of High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under: "(1). Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2). Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3). Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4). Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by apolice officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5). Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6). (5). Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6). Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7). Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 6. In the case of Sri Nivas Gunduluri vs. M/s SEPCU Electric Power Construction Corporation reported in (2010) Supreme Court Criminal Rulings page 1539 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the legal position is 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 uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special feature which appeared in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. 7. In the case of Ajay Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand; (2012) 1 SCC page 564 the Apex Court has held that in our considered opinion, it is not the stage when the court would make an inquiry into the factual position to find out as to whether or not the applicant is guilty of the charges or not. The applicant, in our opinion, will have sufficient opportunity to place his entire case before the court at the time of the charge. 8. The applicant, in our opinion, will have sufficient opportunity to place his entire case before the court at the time of the charge. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and others reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court cases (Crl.) 603, para 13 and 14 has held as under: "(13) it is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the stature. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita vs. State 2000 Crl. LJ 315 and B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana AIR 2003 SC 1386 ). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this Section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy. (14) The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito justitiate, to do real and substantial justice, for administration of which alone courts exist. Wherever any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent the abuse. It is, however, not meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case ends in conviction or acquittal." 9. In the facts of this case, a perusal of the first information report clearly makes out a prima facie cognizable case against the petitioners. The documents filed by the petitioners along with this petition cannot be looked into at this stage. Such documents can be looked into by the trial court at the relevant stage of the trial when duly proved in accordance with law. The question of false implication at this stage cannot be considered as it is a question of fact that can be decided only on the basis of evidence on record and not in this proceeding. 10. Accordingly, this petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. _