JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 9.6.2015 as well as the order dated 29.11.2015 in Complaint Case No. 3672 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Sahabad, District Hardoi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was a second marriage of petitioner, therefore, there was no question of dowry. It has also been submitted that initially the final report was submitted against which opposite party no. 2 had filed the protest petition upon which after recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the petitioner along with his family members have been summoned for the said offence by order dated 29.11.2014 against which the revision has also been rejected by order dated 9.6.2015. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the impugned order. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner, but it is for limited purposes, namely, to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Time and again, Apex Court and various High Courts, including ours one, have reminded when exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified, which cannot be placed in straight jacket formula, but one thing is very clear that it should not preampt a trial and cannot be used in a routine manner so as to cut short the entire process of trial before the Courts below. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. If from a bare perusal of first information report or complaint, it is evident that it does not disclose any offence at all or it is frivolous, collusive or oppressive from the face of it, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but it should be exercised sparingly. This will not include as to whether prosecution is likely to establish its case or not, whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained, or the other circumstances, which would not justify exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I need not go into various aspects in detail but it would be suffice to refer a few recent authorities dealing all these matters in detail, namely, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2006) 7 SCC 296 , Hamida vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474 , Dr. Monica Kumar and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 781 , M.N. Ojha and Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav and Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682 , State of A.P. vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 588 and Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated and Ors. 2011 (1) SCC 74 . 5. In Lee Kun Hee and others Vs. State of U.P. and others JT 2012 (2) SC 237, it was reiterated that Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate evidence, if any, available on record. Interference would be justified only when a clear case of such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled interference even at the preliminary stage by High Court may result in causing obstruction in the progress of inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in public interest. Interference would be justified only when a clear case of such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled interference even at the preliminary stage by High Court may result in causing obstruction in the progress of inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in public interest. It, however, may not be doubted, if on the face of it, either from the first information report or complaint, it is evident that allegation are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair-minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding, in such cases refusal to exercise jurisdiction may equally result in injustice, more particularly, in cases, where the complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint. 6. However, in this matter, after enquiry, the Magistrate has found a prima facie case against accused. At this stage there is no occasion to look into the question, whether the charge ultimately can be substantiated or not since that would be a subject matter of trial. No substantial ground has been made out which may justify interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. At the stage of summoning the accused persons, the court is required to see prima facie evidence. It is not disputed that the deceased had died in the house of the petitioner and there was allegations that she was set to fire after pouring kerosene upon her because the demand of dowry was not fulfilled. It has also come in the evidence that the first wife was shot dead by the petitioner. 8. Learned courts below have considered all aspects of the matter in detail. I do not find any sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. The petition is dismissed.