ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 748/2015 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Yadgiri. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, One Dr. Sunil Singh filed a complaint against unknown persons alleging that on 06.10.2013 some unknown persons damaged the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA32L7800 and TATA Safari car bearing registration No. KA33M3050 and have caused loss to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. On the basis of the said complaint, the police have investigated the case and have filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 143, 147, 149 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981. For having taken cognizance in C.C.No.748/2015, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that there is no prima-facie case made out against the petitioners. The petitioners were not present at the time of alleged incident. The complaint came to be lodged against unknown persons in the first instance and thereafter, petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime and now the charge sheet has been filed only with an intention to harass the petitioners. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State vehemently contended that petitioners are the main persons who have involved in the alleged offences. On the basis of the prima-facie material, the police after investigation have filed charge sheet. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo reported in 2005(13) SCC page 540 to contend that after filing of the charge sheet, this Court cannot interfere with the further proceedings of the Court below. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have perused the records. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have perused the records. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no prima-facie material and the petitioners were not present at the time of alleged crime, but that is a matter which has to be adjudicated and proved only at the time of trial. In the decision cited supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraphs9 and 10 has elaborately discussed as to when the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has to be exercised. In that light, this Court cannot go into the details of the question of facts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, the petitioners will be having right to file an appropriate application at appropriate time for claiming discharge before the Court below. In the event of petitioners filing such application, the Court below shall consider the application and shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.