JUDGMENT : 1. Vakalatnama filed by Ram Lakhan Pal, Advocate on behalf of opposite party is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of S.T. No.574/2022, arising out of Case Crime No.0007/2022, under Sections 376 & 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report came to be lodged against the applicant on the basis of false and fabricated facts. His further submission is that upon conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed without there being any evidence whatsoever against him. He has further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever in support of the charge sheet neither there is any material to frame the charge against the accused nor the proceeding can fruitfully be continued against him. His further submission is that the prosecutrix is living with the applicant as wife and they have been blessed with a girl child. His further submission is that the entire prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is improbable and unbelievable. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that pendency of the instant criminal proceedings against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, the impugned criminal proceedings be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has admitted the fact that the opposite party no.2 is living with applicant peacefully as wife and they have blessed with a girl child. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State controverts the submissions of learned counsel for applicant by submitting that though in this case there is no written compromise between the parties. His further submission is that had there been any compromise also, the same would not be impermissible as the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act are not only non-compoundable but also such offense has an adverse societal effect. To substantiate his argument he has placed reliance on the judgements passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Aparna Bhat & Ors. To substantiate his argument he has placed reliance on the judgements passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Aparna Bhat & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr., LL 2021 SC 168. His further submission is that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (supra) in para no.11 has held as under:- "11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the 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 Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are: (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) "61. … the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."" (emphasis supplied) 8. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is well settled and to the possible extent, Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined sufficiently channelised guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.102 has held 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. (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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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." 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513 in para nos.16, 17 and 18 has held as under:- "16. The proposition of law as set out above makes it abundantly clear that the Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage, when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption, as in this matter. What is also of note is that the factual defence without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint. 17. The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pre-trial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e., the trial Court is ousted from weighing the material evidence. If this is allowed, the accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal process. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e., the trial Court is ousted from weighing the material evidence. If this is allowed, the accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal process. Also because of the legal presumption, when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is in favour of the complainant/prosecution, as the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption. 18. Situated thus, to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not in our opinion be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial Court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited." 10. It is no doubt true that the power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court 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 inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Kumar Jatav vs. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488 has held that the ground that "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case" cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made out for the offence alleged. Likewise in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P., AIR 2022 SC 2044 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for asking. Likewise in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P., AIR 2022 SC 2044 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised for asking. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint/F.I.R. except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. Entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an interlocutory stage itself might ultimately result in miscarriage of justice. 12. In view of the aforesaid settled law, this Court has adverted to the entire record of this case. In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (supra) in para no.11, the offence of rape is a henious offence and it is not a private dispute/offence against the victim only, it has a serious impact on society. Even otherwise, the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel undoubtedly call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. Therefore, this Court does not find any justification to quash the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 13. Having regard to the overall aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that a first information report came to be lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.0007/2022, under Sections 376 & 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against him under Sections 376 & 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against him under Sections 376 & 506 I.P.C. and 5/6 POCSO Act. Therefore, the fact that they have been married together and have blessed with a girl child is a matter of fact, which cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings under challenge is refused as this Court does not find any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the same. There is no abuse of court's process either. 15. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, learned trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and decide the same, keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 35(1)(2) of POCSO Act, strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.