ORDER : 1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR in Crime No. 30/2017, pending on the file of Mahila Police Station, Shivamogga, lodged on the complaint of 2nd respondent Smt. Shilpa M. Doddamani. 2. On careful perusal of the First Information Report, it is seen that there are serious allegations against the petitioner alleging that since five months prior to the complaint, he was speaking vulgar language with her seeking sexual indulgence, he was sexually inciting her and in spite of tolerating and refusing all these acts, he did not desist himself from doing such acts. The complainant has specifically stated that though she has been in a higher position in the public domain, she waited for some time expecting that the petitioner may mend his conduct. As it did not happen, the 2nd respondent lodged the complaint against the accused. The police have registered a case in Crime No. 30/17 and undertaken the investigation. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court producing various documents before this Court to show that the 2nd respondent has filed complaint against her own husband with regard to ill-treatment and harassment. Further, the petitioner has issued several notices to her with reference to her conduct in the Department and calling upon her explanation. On the basis of the above, learned counsel contends that the above said documents are sufficient at this stage to conclude that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. 3. Though some documents have been produced before this Court, they are all xerox of certified copies. The truth or falsity of the said documents has to be tested during the course of investigation by the police and such exercise cannot be taken up by this Court while dealing under S.482 of Cr.P.C. What is required to be established for the purpose of quashing of the FIR is that, on a reading of the report if allegations made are not sufficient to constitute any offence, the court can quash the FIR or on the basis of the material placed if the court can conclusively conclude that a false case has been foisted then also the Court can exercise all such powers to quash the FIR. 4. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the material placed before this Court cannot conclusively establish the falsity of the allegations made against the petitioner. 4. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the material placed before this Court cannot conclusively establish the falsity of the allegations made against the petitioner. Hence, the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage. 5. In view of the above said circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to the learned counsel to produce all these documents before the I.O. so as to enable him to ascertain the truth or falsity of the allegations made against the petitioner and file appropriate report before the Court of law. However, in spite of producing the materials if the police file any charge-sheet on baseless allegations and the Magistrate takes cognizance then the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court once again. 6. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed.