JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ha been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 46/201 dated 17.1.2014 of Police Station, Kotwali, District Bhilwara, for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 354, 376/511,120-B I.P.C. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed the factual report prepared by th Investigating Officer-S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali, District Bhilwara, wherein is mentioned that after investigation police has found that prima-facie evident is available on record against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376/511, 354-B I.P.C. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the F.I.R. lodge against the petitioner is absolutely false because earlier the respondent No. has filed a complaint against the petitioner on 7.1.2014 under Sections 107 116(3) Cr.P.C. before the Additional District Magistrate, Udaipur and in that complaint there is no mention to the fact that the petitioner has tried to commit rape upon her on 19.11.2013. It is contended by learned Counsel for t; petitioner that the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent No. 2 on 17.1.2014 is nothing but after thought with the intention to harass the petitioner and, therefore, same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that from the b perusal of the impugned F.I.R. prima-facie offence is made out against petitioner and now the police has also concluded in the investigation petitioner is guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 376/5 354-B I.P.C., therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. well as the material available on record. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. well as the material available on record. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal, & reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 has examined the powers of the High Court quashing an First Information Report lodged in any Police Station w1 exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Sect 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102 In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.l.R do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.l.R do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that to in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.l.R of the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 7. In a later decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Gill & Anr., reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 8. In the instant case, after reading the contents of the F.I.R. in question, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. At this stage it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 has lodged false F.I.R. against the petitioner. 9. At this stage it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 has lodged false F.I.R. against the petitioner. 9. In such circumstances, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases this Court does not find any merit in this Criminal Misc. Petition as the petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing the F.I.R. in question.Hence there is no force in this Criminal Misc. Petition the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******