ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. Perused the records. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners made available the entire charge-sheet papers. It is seen from the records that a lady, by name Shilpa, wife of Shivayogi Jambagi, lodged a complaint before the PSI, Ranebennur, registered in Crime No.128/2015 for the offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is alleged in the First Information Report that complainant’s marriage with said Shivayogi Jambagi took place on 12.07.2013 at Sri. Kottreshwara Kalyana Mantapa at Kotturu. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, all the family members of her husband demanded 250 gms gold, 2 Kg Silver, and on giving these articles and spending an amount of Rs.8,00,000/, the marriage was performed by the parents of the complainant. It is further alleged that, after the marriage, she went to the matrimonial home and thereafter, the petitioners and others looked after her with love and affection for some time, but, later they started to illtreat and harass her on the ground that, at the time of marriage, no dowry was given and they started demanding for Rs.4,00,000/- as dowry. It is also stated that she became pregnant and, at that time also, her mother-in-law (petitioner No.2 herein) had forced her for abortion. Thereafter, she went back to her parental house, gave birth to a child. In this background, it is further stated that on 12.06.2015, she had been to her matrimonial home along with her father and mother and others. At that time, the petitioners, her husband were present and they abused her with filthy language, threatened her with dire consequences and they all told her not to enter into the house without any dowry amount and gold articles. At the instance of some witnesses, namely Jyothi, Gurushantappa and Kalwad, the matter was resolved. Thereafter, the wife has lodged a complaint with respect to the above said incident. Subsequently, the police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet. The complainant gave her further statement also. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the further statement, with reference to the incident that took place on 12.06.2015, the complainant has not stated anything about the presence of the present petitioners except her husband. Subsequently, the police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet. The complainant gave her further statement also. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the further statement, with reference to the incident that took place on 12.06.2015, the complainant has not stated anything about the presence of the present petitioners except her husband. It is further argued that other witnesses have also not stated about the presence of these petitioners on 12.06.2015. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that it is an afterthought by the complainant in she lodging the complaint after long delay. Therefore, at this stage, there is no specific overt acts or allegations made against these petitioners. Hence, the entire proceedings before the Trial Court has to be quashed. 4. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the Court cannot read isolatedly picking certain portions of the allegations made in the complaint and in the statements of the witnesses and as well in the further statement made by the complainant. A further statement itself shows that it is continuation of the earlier statement. In the earlier statement, the presence of the present petitioners on 12.06.2015 is very much stated by the complainant. Further, added to that, with regard to the demand of gold and silver articles and also the demand of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and insistence of the same has been stated by the complainant, which cannot be, at this stage, be deprecated or discarded by this Court. Further, added to that, even though there is some discrepancy in the statements of witnesses, in my opinion, this is not the stage where the Court can appreciate the charge-sheet papers on record and draw inference that there are no allegations made against these petitioners which do not constitute any offence in law for the time being in force. That can only be done at the time of hearing the parties for the purpose of framing charges, though the Court has very limited power. Further, the Court can weigh the materials to ascertain whether there is sufficient material to frame charges against the accused persons. Though the materials may be sufficient to investigate the matter and file a charge-sheet, it cannot be said that those materials may be sufficient to frame charges. Further, the Court can weigh the materials to ascertain whether there is sufficient material to frame charges against the accused persons. Though the materials may be sufficient to investigate the matter and file a charge-sheet, it cannot be said that those materials may be sufficient to frame charges. The Trial Court has to consider the materials on records and thereafter only come to the conclusion whether there are sufficient material to frame charges. In this regard, it is worth to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.P. Subhash Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennaiand Others, reported in (2013)11 SCC 559 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the matter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, has observed that “where the complaint prima-facie makes out the commission of an offence, the High Court would not in the ordinary course invoke its powers to quash such proceedings except in rare and compelling circumstances.” 5. In view of the same, I do not find any strong, or rarest of rare circumstances, or compelling circumstances in this case to quash the proceedings. 6. In view of the above said circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed, and, accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Trial Court by filing an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. for their discharge. In such an eventuality, the Trial Court is directed to provide an opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In view of disposal of the petition on merits, I.A.No.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.