Order: P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 132/2014 dated 31.05.2014 registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC in Police Station Sadar District Hamirpur (H.P.). Brief facts of the case: 2. Prosecutrix filed criminal complaint against the accused alleging that prosecutrix is residing with her mother who is widow. It is alleged that prosecutrix is the mother of four children. It is further alleged that accused developed illicit relations with prosecutrix since five years and took amount to the tune of Rs.80,000/- (Eighty thousand) from prosecutrix and also took other articles valuing Rs.75,000/- (Seventy five thousand) from prosecutrix and also took mobile phone of prosecutrix valuing Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand). It is further alleged that when prosecutrix demanded above stated amount and articles then accused tried to inflict injuries upon prosecutrix. It is further alleged that accused also kept prosecutrix for seven days at Kullu, Manali and Manikaran. FIR No.132/2014 was registered against accused under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and investigation was conducted. Thereafter charge sheet report filed before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur (H.P.). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur H.P. on dated 30.03.2015 committed the case to learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur and directed the accused to appear before learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur on 01.05.2015. Thereafter learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur assigned the case to learned Additional Sessions Judge Hamirpur H.P. on dated 01.05.2015 for disposal. Thereafter learned Sessions Judge listed case for consideration of charge for 11.12.2015. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination: 1) Whether FIR No.132/2014 dated 31.05.2014 registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC is liable to be quashed after filing of charge sheet in criminal Court and after committal of the case to learned Sessions Judge as alleged in the memorandum of grounds of petition? 2) Final order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that prima facie present case is a case of consensual physical relationship and on this ground FIR be quashed is rejected being devoid of any force for reason hereinafter mentioned. Fact whether present case is a case of consent sexual intercourse or forcible sexual intercourse is complicated issue of fact. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that prima facie present case is a case of consensual physical relationship and on this ground FIR be quashed is rejected being devoid of any force for reason hereinafter mentioned. Fact whether present case is a case of consent sexual intercourse or forcible sexual intercourse is complicated issue of fact. It is well settled law that complicated issue of fact should not be decided under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Same fact would be decided by the learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to State and accused to prove their case by way of adducing oral and documentaries evidence. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to decide issue of consent without giving opportunity to parties to prove case by adducing oral and documentary evidence. 6. Court has perused the statements of prosecution witnesses annexed with criminal charge sheet (1) Statement of prosecutrix (2) Statement of Sh. Chain Singh (3) Statement of Smt. Parkasho Devi (4) Statement of Shabnam (5) Statement of Sh. Harshil Rana (6) Statement of Smt.Nuran Devi (7) Statement of Smt. Kiran Devi (8) Statement of Sh.Sunil Kumar (9) Statement of Sh. Krishan Chand (9A) Statement of C.Saranjit (10) Statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar (11) Statement of Dr. Sunita Galoda (12) Statement of Dr. Mohan Thakur (13) Statement of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur H.P. who recorded statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. (14) Statement of Record Keeper o/o CRPF Group Kartarpur (15) Statement of Record Keeper SBI Hamirur (16) HHC Hans Raj (17) Statement of HHC Kamaljit (18) Statement of HC Vipan Kumar (19) Statement of ASI Sohan Singh (20) Statement of Insp. SHO Sher Singh Thakur annexed with charge sheet. After perusal of the statements of above stated persons carefully it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to quash FIR No.132/2014 dated 31.05.2014 registered against the petitioner under Sections 376 and 506 IPC at this stage of case under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that there is delay in filing complaint and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reason hereinafter mentioned. Issue of delay is complicated issue of facts and law. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that there is delay in filing complaint and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reason hereinafter mentioned. Issue of delay is complicated issue of facts and law. Complicated issue of facts will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving opportunities to both parties to prove their case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to decide issue of delay without giving opportunity to parties to prove case by adducing oral and documentary evidence. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that present criminal complaint is filed by prosecutrix with malafide intention and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reason hereinafter mentioned. Issue of malafide intention is complicated issue of facts. Same issue of facts will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving opportunities to both parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to decide issue of malafide intention at this stage of case without giving any opportunity to parties to prove case by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence relating to malafide intention. 9. It is well settled law that disputed and controversial facts should not be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It is also well settled law that when charge-sheet is filed in competent criminal Court of law then FIR should not be quashed because after filing charge sheet in competent criminal Court of law FIR is culminated into chargesheet. It is also well settled law that High Court power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly in rarest of rare case with circumspection. It is also well settled law that normal process of criminal trial should not be cut short in a casual manner. See 1995(2) SCC 449 title State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thirukkural Perumal. See 1992 Supplement (1) SCC 335 title State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal. See 2015(2) Himachal Law Reporter 1095 title Nancy Bhatt and another Vs. State of H.P. & another. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order). 10. See 1995(2) SCC 449 title State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thirukkural Perumal. See 1992 Supplement (1) SCC 335 title State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal. See 2015(2) Himachal Law Reporter 1095 title Nancy Bhatt and another Vs. State of H.P. & another. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order). 10. In view of my findings on point No.1 above Cr.MMO No. 229/2014 filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before learned Additional Sessions Judge Hamirpur (H.P.) on 31.08.2016. Records of learned Trial Court alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Observations will not effect merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of present petition. Cr.MMO No. 229 of 2014 is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.