ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by petitioner for quashment of FIR dated 29.9.2022 registered vide crime No. 554 of 2022 at police Station Sector 1 Pithampur District Dhar for offence under sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) and all subsequent proceedings. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.9.2022 prosecutrix lodged an FIR at police station Sector No. 1 Pithampur by stating that she is living separately from her husband since last 15 years alongwith her on and daughter. She has given two rooms to Basubai for rent. The present applicant who happens to be brother of Basubai used to come in the said house. ngagement of her son Kanha was solemnized with applicant's daughter Rani on 15.2.2021. On 20.2.2021 at about 5 pm when prosecutrix was alone in her home, at that time applicant entered into her house and told her that "I shall look after your children" and thereafter he has committed rape upon her and repeated same act on several times by threatening her that if she discloses the incident to anyone then he will kill her. Thereafter she broke up engagement of her son with daughter of applicant. On 28.9.2022 applicant also threatened her for life on mobile phone. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this offence. Prior to the incident, complainant has implicated so many persons in various cases and prosecutrix treated the applicant as husband and she is living since last four months as husband and wife. They have so many photographs with each other. After broke-down the engagement prosecutrix has falsely implicated him. FIR is too much belated without any explanation. This Court has granted anticipatory bail to applicant at earlier stage. Hence he prays that FIR registered against him be quashed. 4. Per contra learned counsel for state has opposed the prayer and prays for its rejection. 5. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 though duly served. 6. Both the parties heard at length and perused the documents filed by applicant. 7. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that although FIR is belated, but applicant is named in the FIR. 5. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 though duly served. 6. Both the parties heard at length and perused the documents filed by applicant. 7. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that although FIR is belated, but applicant is named in the FIR. It is admitted fact that prosecutrix is a married lady and did not get divorced from her first husband. The applicant has contended that since last four years he is living with prosecurix as husband and wife. It is indirect admission of sexual relationship of applicant with prosecutrix. Although applicant has filed so many photographs with prosecutrix, but it is noteworthy that prosecutrix has performed engagement of her son with daughter of applicant, therefore, looking to the aforesaid relation, their photographs cannot be treated as a proof that prosecutrix has given her consent for sexual relationship with present applicant. 8. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 317 has held as under:- "It is no more res integra that exercise of power under section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding." 9. In case of Chirag M. Pathak and others v. Dollyben Kantilal Patel reported in (2018) 1 SCC 330 the Hon'ble apex Court has held as under:- "The High Court, in exercise of its powers under section 482 of the Code, cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts contained in the FIR by acting as an Appellate Court and draws its own conclusion. It is only when no prima facie cognizable case is made out on its mere reading due to absurdity in the allegations." 10. The apex Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 in paragraph No.17 & 18 has held as under:- “17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. 18. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.” 11. In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2953 of 2022 , Hon'ble the apex Court has held as under:- “.....Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. 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 except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. ....” 12. It is also notable that petitioner has only sought quashment of FIR but in the instant case, investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed before the trial court. Hence petitioner has not challenged the further proceeding in pursuance to the FIR dated 29.9.2022 therefore, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage this Court cannot make roving inquiry, but if the uncontroverted allegations do not make any offence, only then this Court can quash the FIR. The allegations made against the petitioner establish prima facie case punishable under sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that there is no evidence available against him, cannot be accepted at this stage. 13. In view of the prima facie evidence available on record against the petitioner, without considering the facts on merit, this Court cannot analyze the entire evidence at this stage and come to the conclusion that whether a conviction is possible or not. Therefore, I am of considered view that it is not a fit case where this Court can exercise the power conferred under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 14. Accordingly, petition preferred under section 482 of Cr.P.C. dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall continue the trial against the petitioner without being influenced or prejudiced by the observations made in the instant order.