JUDGMENT : 1. By means of this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”), seven accused applicants, namely, Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Smt. Indrani Mishra, Kaushika Mishra, Shailja Mishra, Shailka Mishra, Kaushlendra Mishra and Harsh Vardhan Verma, have challenged Charge Sheet No. 358A of 2008 dated 06.07.2009 in Case No.1713 of 2009 (Case Crime No. 827 A of 2008) under Sections 147, 323, 336, 296, 504, 505 (3), 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda and the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Second, Gonda. Applicants have also requested that final report submitted by police in Case Crime No. 827A/2008, under Sections 147, 323, 336, 296, 504, 505 (3), 506 IPC be accepted. 2. Facts, in brief, giving rise to this application are that a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) No. 90/09 registered as Case Crime No. 827A/2008, under Sections 147, 323, 336, 296, 504, 505 (3), 506 IPC, was lodged on 19.03.2009 at 05:40 P.M. at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda by Mohd. Shabbir Khan son of Abdul Rajjak Khan (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”), wherein ten accused including all the applicants and others were implicated alleging that they are resourceful persons indulged in unlawful activities and also have political patronage. They have unauthorisedly encroached upon the land of Maszid Hanafia Madarsa Islamia Mousul Ulma Warsi, Baharaich Road, Gonda and have created a mound of earth soil causing lot of inconvenience to the people who used to go Madrasa for study and offer Namaj in Maszid belong to Muslim Community. Accused persons are intending to raise unauthorised construction on the disputed land which used to be opposed by Complainant as well as other respected persons of society and they also put pressure upon authorities to make impartial enquiry in the matter so that communal harmony be maintained. Pursuant thereto police made an investigation and after perusal of government record, illegal possession of accused persons was removed. A document of compromise was also prepared and signed by representatives of both parties which included signatures of accused persons. Representatives of Muslim Community were honestly following the aforesaid compromise but accused and their relatives used to talk senseless and tried to find out an opportunity to weaken Complainant and other representatives of Muslim Community. A document of compromise was also prepared and signed by representatives of both parties which included signatures of accused persons. Representatives of Muslim Community were honestly following the aforesaid compromise but accused and their relatives used to talk senseless and tried to find out an opportunity to weaken Complainant and other representatives of Muslim Community. On 21.11.2008 when people had gone to offer Namaj, after parking their cycles, accused persons started to damage their cycles as also throwing bricks and stones and started riots. Hearing noise, members of Peace Committee came to settle the matter but accused being annoyed attacked collectively upon Syed Ali, Sonu, Babbu, Mansoor Khan, Kallan Khan, Complainant and others and also hit them with Lathi and Danda causing injuries to several persons. Complainant and others ran away to protect themselves but accused continued to threaten them of killing and evicting from area itself. Accused with a common intention formed unlawful assembly, entered Maszid and Madarsa to kill Complainant and others, beat them inside the Mosque and damaged goods kept in Mosque, like, Clock, Chatai etc. They also attempted to take away Rs. 630/-which was a donation. Naib Secretary, Kallan Khan tried to stop them from taking away donation box, whereupon accused Kaushlendra hit on the chest of Kallan Khan with his legs and forcibly taken away donation box. 3. Police made investigation and during course of investigation recorded various statements including that of Shabbir Khan, Complainant, on 19.03.2009. On the same day Police also recorded statements of Heera Lal Gupta and Sheetla Bux Tripathi, who said that accused Kaushlendra Mishra was with him when he had gone to Court for some work and in the afternoon he received an information that Kaushlendra Mishra's family members were assaulted by the persons who had come to offer Namaz. The witnesses and Kaushlendra Mishra rushed to the house and found Kaushlendra Mishra's father, aged about 70 years and mother as well as sister in serious injured condition. Sri Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Smt. Indrani Mishra, Smt. Kaushaka Mishra, Smt. Shalaja Mishra, Km. Shalaka Mishra and Harsh Vardhan Verma were medically examined on 21.11.2008 at District Hospital Gonda and their medical report containing injuries are Annexures-4 to 9 to the application. Smt. Indrani Mishra also found to have suffered fracture in the shaft of middle phalanx of right index finger. Medical examination of Mansoor, Mohd. Shalaka Mishra and Harsh Vardhan Verma were medically examined on 21.11.2008 at District Hospital Gonda and their medical report containing injuries are Annexures-4 to 9 to the application. Smt. Indrani Mishra also found to have suffered fracture in the shaft of middle phalanx of right index finger. Medical examination of Mansoor, Mohd. Kallan Khan, Sonu, Syed Ali and Babbu was held on 09.12.2008 wherein also they found to have sustained injuries and all where categorized by Doctors in District Hospital, Gonda as simple injuries caused by hard and blunt object about three weeks back. 4. On 19.05.2009 investigation was transferred to SIS, Bahraich vide order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Devipatan and after transfer Investigating Officer recorded statements of Babbu Ali, Sonu, Monu, Kaleem, Shahjadey, Guddu alias Shakoor, Nawab, Rajjoo, Lallan Khan and Akbar Ali. Police submitted charge sheet on 06.07.2009 against 10 accused persons including all applicants under Sections 147, 323, 336, 296, 504, 505 (3), 506 IPC. 5. It is contended that no case under the aforesaid provisions is made out at all and Police has submitted charge sheet in hurried manner without making proper investigation and charge sheet is founded on no evidence at all. 6. Police, during investigation, also recorded statements of Dr. Roop Chandra, Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Gonda who admitted that he conducted medical examination on 09.12.2008 and by mistake noticed duration of injuries as three weeks though it was only three days. Similar statement was given by Dr. Ajeet Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, District Hospital, Gonda, who also conducted medical examination of some injured persons on 09.12.2008. Consequently, a Final Report was submitted by Police on 17.12.2009 in Case Crime No. 827A of 2008. Complainant filed protest petition which was allowed by Court below and applicants have been summoned to face trial vide order dated 11.01.2010. 7. Ajeet Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, District Hospital, Gonda, who also conducted medical examination of some injured persons on 09.12.2008. Consequently, a Final Report was submitted by Police on 17.12.2009 in Case Crime No. 827A of 2008. Complainant filed protest petition which was allowed by Court below and applicants have been summoned to face trial vide order dated 11.01.2010. 7. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that as per own complaint of Complainant, incident took place on 21.11.2008 and alleged injured persons of Complainant side were examined on 09.12.2008, i.e., almost on 18th day while the accused injured persons were examined on 21.11.2008 itself and their injuries are well supported by medical examination but ignoring the same Magistrate has failed to apply its mind that Doctors who examined Complainant's injured persons mentioned duration of their injuries as three weeks while in statement recorded by Police they clearly said that duration was only three days hence Complainant's story was apparently false, still Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned applicants which is nothing but a sheer gross abuse of process of law. 8. Learned A.G.A., however, submitted that statements of two Doctors that they mistakenly mentioned duration of three weeks though it was only three days, is subject to further examination in evidence as it is not probable that when more than one medical officer conducted medical examination, both committed same mistake with respect of duration of injuries and at this stage, therefore, defence of applicants cannot be examined. 9. I have gone through the record and rival submissions. It is no doubt true that injured witnesses have confirmed FIR story that they sustained injuries on 21.11.2008 and the factum that injuries were found on the person/ persons named by Complaint also cannot be doubted but further question is, “whether they sustained injuries on 21.11.2008 or just three days earlier when medical examination was conducted on 09.12.2008”. 10. Further, accused applicants sustained injuries on 21.11.2008 is also a matter of evidence but atleast this much is clear that some incident took place on 21.11.2008. As per own showing of applicants, they sustained injuries and not Complainant's named persons. If there was a cross case, who was aggressor, who started dispute, who attacked first, is all a matter of evidence. At this stage, it cannot be said that no incident has taken place or no offence has been committed and there is no evidence whatsoever. As per own showing of applicants, they sustained injuries and not Complainant's named persons. If there was a cross case, who was aggressor, who started dispute, who attacked first, is all a matter of evidence. At this stage, it cannot be said that no incident has taken place or no offence has been committed and there is no evidence whatsoever. Whether accused defence is justified or not is not to be examined at this stage. The allegations being factual in nature can be decided only after evidence is recorded in trial. 11. In view of settled legal proposition, no findings can be recorded about veracity of allegations at this juncture in absence of evidence. Apex Court has highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be sparingly/rarely invoked with complete circumspection and caution. Very recently in Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) decided on 15th April, 2019, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under : “15. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. 16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence. 17. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. 16. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence. 17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case.” (emphasis added) 12. Recently, above view has been reiterated by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadaun and another), decided on 31.01.2020. 13. The principles which justify interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Court have been laid down in various authorities in which Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 was leading precedent and thereafter matter has also been examined by even Larger Benches. 14. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra) issue of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been considered and what has been laid down therein in paragraph 102, has been repeatedly followed and reiterated consistently. In very recent judgment in Google India Private Limited Vs. Visakha Industries and Ors. , AIR 2020 SC 350, guidelines laid down in paragraph 102 in Bhajal Lal's case (supra) have been reproduced as under : “102. In very recent judgment in Google India Private Limited Vs. Visakha Industries and Ors. , AIR 2020 SC 350, guidelines laid down in paragraph 102 in Bhajal Lal's case (supra) have been reproduced as under : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power Under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the Accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added) 15. Court has also reproduced note of caution given in paragraph 103 in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) which reads as under : “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis added) 16. What would be the scope of expression “rarest of rare cases” referred to in para 103 in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) has been considered in Jeffrey J. Diermeier and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. , 2010 (6) SCC 243 , Court has said that words “rarest of rare cases” are used after the words 'sparingly and with circumspection' while describing scope of Section 482 CrPC. Those words merely emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words 'sparingly and with circumspection'. They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression "rarest of rare cases" is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302 IPC, but to emphasize that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection. 17. Supreme Court in Jeffrey J. Diermeier (supra) infact referred to an earlier Three Judges' Bench judgment in Som Mittal Vs. State of Karnataka, 2008 (3) SCC 753 , to explain phrase “rarest of rare cases”. In Som Mittal (supra), Court also said that exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is not a rule but exception. Exception is applied only when it is brought to notice of Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be added if trial is allowed to proceed where accused would be harassed unnecessarily or if trial is allowed to linger when prima facie it appears to Court that trial would likely to be ended in acquittal. Whenever question of fact is raised which requires evidence, Courts always said that at pre trial stage i.e. at the stage of cognizance taken by Magistrate power under Section 482 CrPC would not be appropriate to be utilized, since, question of fact has to be decided in the light of evidence which are yet to be adduced by parties. 18. In Lakshman vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2019 (9) SCC 677 Court said that it is not permissible for High Court in application under Section 482 CrPC to record any finding wherever there are factual disputes. Court also held that even in dispute of civil nature where there is allegation of breach of contract, if there is any element of breach of trust with mens rea, it gives rise to criminal prosecution as well and merely on the ground that there was civil dispute, criminality involved in the matter cannot be ignored. Court also held that even in dispute of civil nature where there is allegation of breach of contract, if there is any element of breach of trust with mens rea, it gives rise to criminal prosecution as well and merely on the ground that there was civil dispute, criminality involved in the matter cannot be ignored. Further whether there is any mens rea on part of accused or not, is a matter required to be considered having regard to facts and circumstances and contents of complaint and evidence etc, therefore, it cannot be said pre judged in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. 19. In Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR 2019 SC 3913 , Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction though wide and expansive has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise would justify by tests specifically laid down in Section itself. In paragraph 14 of judgment, Court said : “14. For interference Under Section 482, three conditions are to be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a grave, and not of a trivial character; it should be palpable and clear and not doubtful and there should exist no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief.” (emphasis added) 20. Court also said that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were Trial Court. Court has only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. For that limited purpose, Court can evaluate material and documents on record but it cannot appreciate evidence to conclude whether materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting accused. High Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC embarking upon an enquiry into whether evidence is reliable or not or whether on reasonable apprehension of evidence, allegations are not sustainable, or decide function of Trial Judge. For the above proposition, Court relied on its earlier authority in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited and others vs Mohd. Sharaful Haque and others, 2005 (1) SCC 122 . 21. Power under section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. At the same time, if basic ingredients of offfences alleged are altogether absent, criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Sharaful Haque and others, 2005 (1) SCC 122 . 21. Power under section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. At the same time, if basic ingredients of offfences alleged are altogether absent, criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on M.A.A. Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. , 2010 (8) SCC 524 , Sharda Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754 and Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors., 1976 AIR 1976 SC 1947 , Court in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Ors. (supra) said that where allegations set out in complaint or charge sheet do not constitute any offence, it is open to High Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash order passed by Magistrate taking cognizance of offence. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is intended to prevent abuse of process of Court and to clear ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under CrPC. Magistrate also has to take cognizance applying judicial mind only to see whether prima facie case is made out for summoning accused persons or not. At this stage, Magistrate is neither required to consider FIR version nor he is required to evaluate value of materials or evidence of complainant find out at this stage whether evidence would lead to conviction or not. 22. It has also been so observed in Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 2017 (16) SCC 772 and Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta and Ors. , 2015 (3) SC 424 and followed recently in Roshni Chopra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (7) Scale 152 . Here Court also referred to judgment in Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal and Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 139 , wherein paragraph 9, Court said that in determining the question whether any process has to be issued or not, Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not and whether there is sufficient ground for conviction; whether the evidence is adequate for supporting conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. 23. However, it is also true that at the stage of issuing process to the accused, Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons. 23. However, it is also true that at the stage of issuing process to the accused, Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons. In U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Mohan Meaking Limited and others, 2000 (3) SCC 745 , after referring to a decision in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs State of West Bengal 2001 SCC 722 , Court said : “Legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of complaint without issuing process. There is no such requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passed detailed order while issuing summons. Process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that Magistrate had not passed a speaking order.” (emphasis added) 24. Same proposition was reiterated in Nupur Talwar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and others, 2012 (11) SCC 465 . 25. In a Three Judges' Bench in Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors. Vs State of Gujarat and Ors, 2017 (9) SCC 641 , Court has observed that Section 482 CrPC is prefaced with an overriding provision. It saves inherent power of High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Paragraph 15 of the judgment Court summarized as under : “(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; (ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash Under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash Under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. (iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction Under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; (iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; (v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; (vi) In the exercise of the power Under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; (vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; (viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; (ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” (emphasis added) 26. Above observations have been reiterated in Arun Singh and other Vs State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal no.250 of 2020 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5224 of 2017), decided by Supreme Court on 10.02.2020. 27. Reliance placed by learned counsel for petitioner in Pepsi Foods Ltd (supra) on the scope of Section 482 CrPC is also in conformity with law as discussed above. I do not find anything otherwise stated therein or something which is different than what has been discussed above, which may help petitioner in a different manner. 27. Reliance placed by learned counsel for petitioner in Pepsi Foods Ltd (supra) on the scope of Section 482 CrPC is also in conformity with law as discussed above. I do not find anything otherwise stated therein or something which is different than what has been discussed above, which may help petitioner in a different manner. No doubt Court said that summoning of accused in criminal case is a serious matter and Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course, but to suggest that at the cognizance stage, defence evidence can be looked into and assessed on merit or it can be done by this Court when an application under Section 482 CrPC is brought to this Court against order of cognizance/summoning is neither legal nor permissible. This argument is, therefore, rejected. 28. In view of above discussion and facts and circumstances, I do not find that any case has been made out justifying interference at this stage. It cannot be said that no incident has taken place or there is no evidence whatsoever to show that applicants have committed no offence. Hence, no interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified. 29. Application is accordingly dismissed.