JUDGMENT 1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report bearing Case Crime No.28 of 2017, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 2. We have carefully gone through the impugned First Information Report. Gist of the allegation is that son of the petitioner aged about 10 years went missing on 30.01.2017. All attempts were made to trace the whereabout of the missing person. On 31.01.2017 the complainant was informed that the dead body was lying behind the Masjid. Suspicion has been shown on four accused, including the petitioner. It has further been alleged in the F.I.R. that after the incident the suspects did not come to look at the dead body and have been missing. Their houses are lying locked. 3. We have considered the contention of learned counsel. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner. Merely on suspicion the petitioner cannot be apprehended. 5. The incident is not an eye-witness account. Investigation is at inceptive stage in so much as the crime was registered on 31.01.2017. It is for the investigating agency to conduct thorough investigation and find out as to who is the accused. Any order passed in writ jurisdiction is likely to interfere in the investigation process. Offence of serious nature has been committed. 6. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner(s), in context of the material/pleadings relied on by the petitioner(s), in context of judgment rendered by Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in Rajiv Thappar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 . In Rajiv Thappar?s case (supra), the following (relevant portion) has been held: - ?29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution?s/complainant?s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: 30.1. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? (Emphasised by us) 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.? 7. We are of the considered opinion that the material/pleadings on which learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has relied, is not such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the chargesllegations levelled against the accused; and the material produced is not of sterling and impeccable quality as would persuade reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusation as false. 8. Under the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 9. The petition is dismissed.