JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No. 112/2013, registered at Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City, North, for offences under Sections 323, 342, 365 and 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.3.2013 one Mst. Shabnam, the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2, lodged a report at Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (South), wherein she claimed that she is resident of Gandhi Park, Diggi Malpura, District Tonk. For the last fifteen days, she has been living with her cousin brother, Bablu in the Bhojpur kachhi basti. According to her, on the previous evening, Mr. Kayuum Nagori called her on her mobile phone at 5:30 P.M. and told her that he wants to discuss something about a house. When she came out of her cousin brother's house, she found Ayub and Kayuum sitting in the Car. They asked her to sit in their Car. But due to her fear, she refused to do. Therefore, they permitted her nephew, Asif to come along with her. Thus, she sat in the Car along with her nephew, Asif. But subsequently, she realised that she is being abducted. According to her, they reached a plot at Khon-Nagorian, where these two persons assaulted on her, and on her nephew. Ayub caught hold of her nephew, and Kayuum tried to commit rape upon her. He tore her clothes. She tried to resist his attempt. Consequently, he hit her on her head and mouth. Ultimately, at 1:00 O'clock at night, she and her nephew escaped from their clutches. On the basis of this report, the Police Station, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City [South], registered a formal F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No. 112/2013 for the aforementioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Sunil Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the prosecutrix was staying with Kayuum Khan, the petitioner No. 1 for the last three years. Because of a disagreement that erupted between them, she left his place and came back to her parental house. Since the prosecutrix's mother and cousin brother were always against her staying with Kayuum Khan, they instigated her to lodge a false report against him. Due to their instigation, a false report has been lodged by the prosecutrix against the petitioners. Because of a disagreement that erupted between them, she left his place and came back to her parental house. Since the prosecutrix's mother and cousin brother were always against her staying with Kayuum Khan, they instigated her to lodge a false report against him. Due to their instigation, a false report has been lodged by the prosecutrix against the petitioners. According to him, the prosecutrix has also submitted an affidavit, wherein she has clearly stated that because of certain disagreements with Kayuum Khan, she had left his house. And it is her mother and brother who had instigated her to lodge the report. According to the learned counsel, since the prosecutrix has given the affidavit, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed by this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the F.I.R., as well as affidavit filed along with this petition. 5. Needless to say, an offence is not only an act against an individual, but is equally an act against the society at large. Therefore, it is not merely the interest of an individual, which is essential, but more so the interest of the Society which is paramount. The Court, in fact, reflects the desire, the thinking, the voice of the society. Therefore, once a F.I.R. is lodged, considering the magnitude of the offence, even if the complainant wishes to withdraw the case, circumstances may still exist where such withdrawal of a case cannot be permitted. For, the interest of the Society is still involved in the case. 6. The allegations levelled by the prosecutrix are not simple, but are a grave one. According to her, the petitioners had tried to commit rape upon her. Thus, the allegations fall within the category of "offence against woman. At this initial stage, it is not for this Court to go into the question whether the prosecutrix had lived for three years with the petitioner No. 1 or not, whether the F.I.R. is motivated or not. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that the allegations made in the F.I.R. have to be taken as un-controverted facts; if the allegations reveal existence of all the ingredients of the offences, the Court should not interfere with the F.I.R. in its inherent jurisdiction. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that the allegations made in the F.I.R. have to be taken as un-controverted facts; if the allegations reveal existence of all the ingredients of the offences, the Court should not interfere with the F.I.R. in its inherent jurisdiction. Moreover, in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Apex Court has opined that in cases of grave offences, even if a compromise were struck between the parties, neither the F.I.R. nor the complaint, nor the criminal proceedings can be quashed by the Court under its inherent jurisdiction. 7. The circumstances under which the affidavit has been submitted by the prosecutrix are unknown. This is a facet, which would have to be examined by the Investigating Officer. Instances are not lacking when the offender pressurizes the prosecutrix to change her stand. In case, the affidavits were to be accepted at this stage, it would motivate the offenders to apply arm twisting tactics upon a prosecutrix to change her stand, and to bail him out of his criminal liability. Such a subterfuge can neither be accepted by this Court, nor permitted by this Court to be unleashed upon helpless prosecutrix. After all, it is the primary duty of this Court to defend and protect the weaker section of the society. No Court can be privy to, and no Court can permit the strong to oppress the weak. Repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the Courts have to be sensitive to the plight of the woman in this country, and to protect them from the offender. 8. Thus, despite the existence of the alleged affidavit given by the prosecutrix, this Court is of the opinion that this petition lacks merit: it is, hereby, dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of the main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******