JUDGMENT A. K. Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. Prayer is made to quash the cognizance order dated 1.11.2016 passed in 2(b)CC Case No.6 of 2015 by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar in taking cognizance under section 27(3) of Orissa Forest Act and U/R 21 of The Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules and in proceeding against two accused persons including the present petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without his knowledge the alleged transportation was done for which the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 4. Having gone through the prosecution report submitted by Forest Department on 28.1.2015, I am of the considered opinion that the plea urged here can be taken as defence. But that meticulous analysis of evidence is not required to be done while exercising the jurisdiction under section 482, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is at liberty to raise that point during trial. In the judgment reported in; Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs The State of Maharashtra, (2019) 74 OCR 131 (SC) is held that:- "6.Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not." 5. The Prosecution Report having disclosed prima facie offence alleged, the principles enumerated in the decision reported in: State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992) AIR SC 604 to quash the proceeding, are not attracted. Hence, this court is not persuaded to invoke section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.