JUDGMENT : (Shamim Ahmed, J.) : 1. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Om Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1 and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant, namely-Rajnu, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Crl. Case No.1177 of 2022; State vs. Rajnu arising out of Crime No.236/2021 under Section 363, 366, 504 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Mall, District-Lucknow pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.1, Lucknow and allow the instant application in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case due village rivalry. He further submits that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.9387/2022 for quashing of the charge sheet, summoning order and entire proceedings of the aforesaid case, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2022. He further submits that now the parties have entered into a compromise and do not want to prosecute the present case on the basis of compromise entered into parties, thus, he submits that the present application may be allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1 vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned Counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties are praying for quashing of the aforesaid case which has been registered under Section 363, 366, 504 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which is against the mandate given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr,; reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 , thus, he submits that the proceedings registered under the provisions of the POCSO Act cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. He further submits that case is pending in the concerned trial court and it is making endeavors to conclude the same, thus, this application is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 5. He further submits that case is pending in the concerned trial court and it is making endeavors to conclude the same, thus, this application is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 5. From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at the bar, it does not appear that no offence has been made out against the applicant. 6. At the stage of issuing process the trial court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record, only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866 , (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283. 7. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. 8. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. 8. The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing of charge sheet/summoning order/impugned proceedings is refused. There is no merit in this case. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage. 9. Thus, after considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court finds that the objection raised by learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1 appears to justified, the compromise on the basis of which, the parties are praying for quashing of the aforesaid proceedings is against the mandate given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra). Further, there is no other ground/avement made in this application by the applicant to quash the aforesaid proceedings, thus, this application lacks merit and substance and is liable to be rejected. 10. In view thereof, the present application is hereby rejected.