ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" for brevity). 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in S.C. No. 213 of 2016 on the files of the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. In the aforesaid case, they are being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Section 313, 323, 341, 342, 498(A), 503 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. 3. The prosecution allegation as per the complaint is that the 1st petitioner married the 2nd respondent on 4.9.2014. They started residing as husband and wife along with the respondents 4 and 5 at Oottakaman. While residing together, the petitioners are alleged to have ill treated and tortured the 2nd respondent and she was compelled to terminate her pregnancy. Specific allegation is that even thereafter, while the de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner were living with his parents, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment demanding more dowry. Various other allegations are also raised in Annexure-A1 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the learned Magistrate. 4. The complaint was forwarded to the police based on which a crime was registered . After investigation final report has been laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was committed to the court of Sessions where the same is pending trial. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are absolutely false and falsified by the materials on record. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have been roped in without any rhyme or reason and the prosecution is liable to be quashed on that ground itself. It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel that the complaint was lodged only after the 1st petitioner had filed O.P. (HMA) No. 346 of 2014 seeking for a declaration that the marriage was null and void. This itself would reveal that the allegations are made up. The learned counsel has profusely relied on the statement of the witnesses to bring home the point that the version of the 2nd respondent is inconsistent and falsified by the medical evidence. This itself would reveal that the allegations are made up. The learned counsel has profusely relied on the statement of the witnesses to bring home the point that the version of the 2nd respondent is inconsistent and falsified by the medical evidence. Referring to the statement of Doctor Usha, who was initially arrayed as the 6th accused in the FIR, it is submitted that the version of the Doctor would militate against the version of the de facto complainant. According to the learned counsel, there is absolutely no reason to drag the petitioners to an ordeal of a trial and this is a fit case where this Court will be justified in invoking powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions refutes the submissions of the learned Counsel and submits that the investigation, which was conducted meticulously reveals the complicity of the petitioner. It is further urged that the contentions advanced by the petitioners are in the realm of appreciation of evidence which cannot be considered by the Court invoking powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the materials on record. 8. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is, as to whether uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint establish the offence. While exercising powers under section 482 of the Code, this Court will have to refrain from analysing the materials which are yet to be adduced and seen in their true perspective. Power is to be used sparingly only in rare cases and should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Though the learned counsel has pointed out some discrepancies in the statement of witnesses with that of the statement of the Doctor, it doesn't appear to me that those matters can be taken into consideration by this Court at that particular stage. I refrain from passing opinion on the merits of the allegations at this stage lest it affects the case of either the prosecution or the accused. 9. From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. I refrain from passing opinion on the merits of the allegations at this stage lest it affects the case of either the prosecution or the accused. 9. From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of the Code. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and Others, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 293. 10. The petitioners can raise all their contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage. No interference is warranted in this petition. This petition is dismissed.