JUDGMENT : Subhash Kakade, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the order dated 27.11.2013, passed in Criminal Revision No.258/2013, by Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, arising out of order dated 03.08.2013, passed in Criminal Complaint No.3219/2013, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, directing therein to register the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 506(2) of IPC. 2. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent Smt. Laxmi Bai has ordered to register above mentioned criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 506(2) of IPC against applicant No.1 Smt. Joyti, applicant No.2 Rakesh and applicant No.3 Bhuvnesh. 3. Being aggrieved by said order of registration, the applicants filed revision which was dismissed by learned Revisional court of Additional Session Judge, Sagar vide impugned order dated 27.11.2013, passed in Criminal Revision Case No.258/2013, hence this application. 4. Shri T.R. Tantuway, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the same alleged date the respondent Smt. Laxmi Bai inflicted injuries to Anita Dubey, relative of the applicant No.1 on the issue of pending civil dispute of common passage. Earlier on 23.10.2012 an F.I.R. It is submitted by learned counsel that the learned courts below have erred in law as well as on facts ignoring that to make undue pressure the respondent Smt. Laxmi Bai filed the private complaint, hence it amounts to misuse of the process of law causing injustice to the applicants hence, registration of Criminal Case No.3219/2013 be quashed. 5. Keeping in the mind submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and after perusal of the available entire record it is not a fit case where impugned order of registration can be quashed. 6. Time and again the Apex Court has been pointing out that the quashing of F.I.R. or a complaint in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions - State v Bhajan Lal : AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 CrLJ 527 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Rajesh v State : (1999)3 SCC 259 : AIR 1999 SC 1216 : 1999 CrLJ 1833 ; Medchi Chemicals v Biological E. Ltd. : 2000 CrLJ 1487 (SC). L.V. Jadhav v Shankarrao : AIR 1983 SC 1219 : 1983 CrLJ 1501 : (1983)4 SCC 231 . 7. L.V. Jadhav v Shankarrao : AIR 1983 SC 1219 : 1983 CrLJ 1501 : (1983)4 SCC 231 . 7. The settled legal position is that the power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases - Pepsi Foods Ltd. : AIR 1998 SC 889 ; Roopam Deol Bajaj AIR 1995 SC 4100; Rashmi Kumar : AIR 1997 SC 415. 8. Whether the material is sufficient for holding the accused guilty or not is the matter of trial. High Court at this stage should not usurp the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and to see whether any case is made out or not. 9. At this stage, it is not required to go into the pros and cons of submissions made by the applicants whether material supplied by the complainant prima facie case is made out or not. At this stage, the broad test to be applied is whether the material available on record is reasonably sufficient for putting the accused on trial or not. 10. On the same date of alleged incident the respondent Smt. Laxmi Bai inflicted injuries to Anita Dubey, relative of the applicant No.1 on the issue of pending civil dispute of common passage and to negativate the F.I.R. lodged by Anita Dubey. This complaint is filed by the respondent Smt. Laxmi Bai against the applicants can not be treated as extreme exception. Prima facie any other malafides, frivolousness or vexatiousness on part of the complainant is also not on record. 11. However, it will be open for the applicants to raise all above mentioned submission with all their possible defences at the time of framing of charge and same should be considered by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed as having no merits.