JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the summoning/cognizance order dated 4.3.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1009 of 2020, State v. Deepak Sagar, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Background facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed an FIR on 10.12.2019 against the present applicant and six other persons stating that she is acquainted with the accused applicant ever since the time he did not attain the age of majority and the accused applicant used to continuously meet her and talk to her on mobile phone. In June 2016, accused applicant took her to Hotel City Star and committed rape on her and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone and said that he recorded the entire incident in the camera. Thereafter the accused applicant forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her many a times. In December, 2017, the accused applicant took her to Hotel Madhuban, Kashipur and in January 2018, he took her to his house in Vaishali Colony and committed rape on her. When the prosecutrix became pregnant, the accused applicant terminated her pregnancy on 10.2.2019 assuring her that he would marry her. Thereafter he continued to commit forceful sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. When the prosecutrix asked the accused applicant to marry her, the applicant refused and he also administered poison to her. When the prosecutrix threatened to lodge the FIR, the accused applicant abused her in filthy language and threatened to make viral the video clipping. 3. After investigation, police submitted the chargesheet only against the present applicant and remaining co-accused persons were exonerated. Pursuant to the chargesheet, the Court below took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused applicant to face the trial. 4. The case of the accused applicant is that though he knew the prosecutrix, but he never promised to marry her nor did he ever rape her. As per the case of the accused applicant, the prosecutrix has falsely implicated him in order to blackmail him. It has also been averred that there is huge delay in lodging the FIR. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsels for the parties and carefully perused the materials on record. 6. As per the case of the accused applicant, the prosecutrix has falsely implicated him in order to blackmail him. It has also been averred that there is huge delay in lodging the FIR. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsels for the parties and carefully perused the materials on record. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that there was no misconception of fact. In fact, the applicant never promised to marry the prosecutrix and even assuming that there was any sexual intercourse, the same, at the most, can be said to have happened with the consent of the prosecutrix. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108 and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2019) AIR SC 327. 7. Learned Counsel for the prosecutrix argued that the prosecutrix and the accused applicant were in relationship with each other and had sexual intercourse many a times. He further argued that even if the sexual intercourse happened with the consent of the prosecutrix, the said consent was obtained by misconception of fact i.e. on false promise of marrying the prosecutrix and, therefore, the consent was vitiated in view of the provisions contained under Section 90 of the IPC. 8. Learned State Counsel argued that there are sufficient evidence against the accused applicant to prosecute him. Prosecutrix supported the prosecution story in her statement under Section 161 CrPC. Phone call details also support the prosecution story. 9. As is evident from the foregoing discussion that disputed questions of fact are involved in the present dispute and the allegations made against the accused applicant, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, a prima facie case is made out against the accused applicant. The judgments relied by learned Counsel for the accused applicant are not attracted in the present case. In Maheshwar Tigga case, the prosecutrix was herself aware of obstacles in their relationship because of different religious beliefs. In Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar, the accused was already married and the prosecutrix knew this fact. 10. The judgments relied by learned Counsel for the accused applicant are not attracted in the present case. In Maheshwar Tigga case, the prosecutrix was herself aware of obstacles in their relationship because of different religious beliefs. In Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar, the accused was already married and the prosecutrix knew this fact. 10. Hon'Ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 9 SCC 293 , has observed that in order to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings raised by an accused under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court should analyze (i) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable; (ii) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint; (iii) whether the material relied upon by the accused cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and (iv) whether the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and hence, would not serve the ends of justice? 11. In my considered opinion, the answer to none these questions is in affirmative and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings by exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC. 12. It is also settled law that power under Section 482 CrPC requires great caution in its exercise. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has elaborately discussed such scope in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & others, (2008) 1 SCC(Cri) 259, and has held that inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 13. In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this criminal miscellaneous application. Consequently, the present C482 petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Inform the Court concerned accordingly. 14. However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 13. In view of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in this criminal miscellaneous application. Consequently, the present C482 petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Inform the Court concerned accordingly. 14. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding the present C482 application and the same shall not be considered in any other proceeding and shall not prejudice the trial court while deciding the case on merit.