Judgment Prafulla. C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 145(S) of 2012 pending in the court of Smti R.M. Kharsyntiew, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong. 3. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, Smti Irene P. Hujon, gave a report at the Police Station Laban on 26-2-2012 alleging that the present petitioner publicly defamed her in a press conference dated 20-2-2012 and also at Khasi Student Union's office on 26-2-2012. Respondent No. 2 alleged in her report that the petitioner made false allegations against her that she had taken money from a Member of Parliament to disrupt the jail break enquiry. 5. It appears that on 1-3-2012, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shillong allowed the Police of Laitumkhrah P.S. (to whom the report appears to have been forwarded) to investigate the crime in respect of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. After investigation, on 15-7-2012 charge sheet is said to have been filed against the present petitioner for trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. Consequently, the same was registered as GR Case No. 145(S) of 2012 arisen out of P.S. Case No. 23(3) of 2012 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong, challenged in this proceeding. 6. The main ground of challenge in the petition is that the police had no power to investigate the crime in respect of non-cognizable offence without orders from the Magistrate. However, this ground is not prima facie substantiated as annexure-4, copy of the order dated 1-3-2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate reads as under: ----ORDER---- Date 01/3/12 C.R. put up today. Seen prayer of the Insp. F. Rahman dtd. 29-2-2012 stating therein that a written F.I.R. was received from the complainant Smti. P. Hujon to the effect that Smti. Agnes Kharshiing had publicly defamed her that she had taken money from the M.P. Shri Vincent Pala. Thus Smti. Hujon was demoralized and defamed in the eyes of the Public. Hence this F.I.R. However that the offence is non-cognizable, Insp. F. Rahman pray for registration of the case U/S. 500 IPC and for investigation of the same. Agnes Kharshiing had publicly defamed her that she had taken money from the M.P. Shri Vincent Pala. Thus Smti. Hujon was demoralized and defamed in the eyes of the Public. Hence this F.I.R. However that the offence is non-cognizable, Insp. F. Rahman pray for registration of the case U/S. 500 IPC and for investigation of the same. Prayer U/S. 155(2)(3) of the CR.P.C. is allowed and to put up after the investigation is done with. Sd/- Smti. M.B. Challam, Chief Judicial Magistrate Shillong Court. 7. Above order clearly shows that on receipt of the report of police and on its request, the permission was granted to investigate the matter after perusal of C.R. As such, it cannot be said that permission was not accorded by the Magistrate before registering of non-cognizable report. 8. Another ground on which the proceeding pending before the trial court against the petitioner which is challenged is that, two P.S. Case No. 20(2) of 2012 and 23(3) of 2012 were registered in respect of the same offence, as such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. However, from perusal of the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, it appears that the petitioner is facing only one trial in respect of the alleged incident. As such, even if there are two entries in respect of the report lodged with the police, since the case pending against the petitioner is only one which resulted after investigation, on the above ground the proceedings in the opinion of this court cannot be quashed. 9. Also, there are factual disputes raised by the petitioner but the same cannot be appreciated by this court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. It is desirable for the trial court to examine the pleas of factual defence raised by the petitioner after recording the evidence of the parties. 10. In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case pending before the trial court, the present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed with the observation that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all available pleas of her defence before the trial court including the defence relating to the consequence of non supply of CD which is said to be relied by the prosecution.