JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioner seeks quashing of the charge-sheet no. 118 of 2019, dated 14th July , 2019 as well as the entire proceedings of the criminal case no. 706 of 2019, State vs. Javed Warsi, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar ('the case'). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. The case is based on an FIR, lodged by respondent no.2, on 27th May, 2019, at Police Station Bazpur. According to it, on 11th May, 2019, at 07:25 P.M. the informant and her son were attacked by the petitioner and by the shop keeper, whose shop the informant visited at the relevant time, the informant was also molested. The FIR also states that similar incident was done by the petitioner with her on 25th March, 2019. There are other details as well in the FIR. It is this FIR in which after the investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and 30th July, 2019 cognizance has been taken and the petitioner was summoned to answer the accusation, which is under challenge herein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the role of the police is much mysterious in the case. With regard to an incident on 11th May, 2019, the petitioner as well as Lalit Mehndiratta gave an information/report against the informant on 11th May, 2019, which is annexure 4 & 5 respectively to the petition. But, the police did not lodge the report given by the petitioner and Lalit Mehndiratta, instead, it is argued, that on 27th May, 2019, after much delay, the report of the informant has been lodged as it is done by the police in collusion with the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would also argue that since the FIR is delayed, therefore, during the investigation protection was also granted by this Court. 6. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code'). The law on this subject is much settled. In case, prima facie case is made out, no interference is warranted generally. Meticulous examination is also not required and a legitimate prosecution should not be scuttled at its threshold. 7. Annexure 4 and 5, the reports allegedly given by the petioner and Lalit Mehndiratta, if pertains to the incident dated 11th May, 2019, also implies that some incident occurred on that date. Meticulous examination is also not required and a legitimate prosecution should not be scuttled at its threshold. 7. Annexure 4 and 5, the reports allegedly given by the petioner and Lalit Mehndiratta, if pertains to the incident dated 11th May, 2019, also implies that some incident occurred on that date. Now, the petitioner has a version and a grievance that his report was not lodged. The case of the informant was lodged and investigated and the investigating officer found that the petitioner committed the offences. 8. An argument has been raised that the person Lalit Mehndiratta, who lodged a report against the informant on 11th May, 2019, has been shown as a witness in the charge-sheet against the petitioner. This is something which will definitely help to unearth the truth. Lalit Mehndiratta would also have his say during the trial so as the petitioner and informant. Perusal of FIR discloses commission of the cognizable offence and the IO has found it truthful, which would fall for scrutiny of the court during the trial. At trial, the petitioner would definitely have all the defences as are legally admissible to him. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a direction may be issued that as and when the petitioner surrenders and applies for bail, his bail application may be decided expeditiously. As and when the bail applications are field, they are decided expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and for such no directions, as such, are required. 10. The petition is dismissed.