ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of an FIR No. 163/2023 dated 10.10.2023 registered at the Police Station Jamsar, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 363, 342, 328, 365, 376, 376-D, 382, 506 and 34 of IPC. 2. The relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are summarized as follows: The complainant (Respondent No. 2) filed an FIR alleging that the accused committed rape. The petitioner contends that the allegations are vague and unsupported by evidence. 2.1 Aggrieved by the FIR, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Petition No. 151/2024. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to submit a detailed representation and directed that no arrest be made until the representation is decided. 2.2 The petitioner subsequently filed another Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1014/2024 before this Court. In its order dated 21.02.2024, a co-ordinate bench of this court observed that if the investigation finds the offense to be proven, the petitioner should be given a prior notice of 15 days before any arrest is made, allowing the petitioner to exercise his legitimate rights. 2.3 On 22.05.2024, the investigating officer issued a notice to the petitioner, requiring his presence for investigation. Hence, this petition. 3. In light of the above, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, and I have perused the case file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues, among other points, that the FIR does not disclose any specific offence against the petitioner. The counsel contends that the proceedings initiated by the police are an abuse of the legal process, as the petitioner's name is not mentioned in the FIR, nor is any specific criminal act attributed to him. The petitioner asserts that he has been falsely implicated by the police merely because he owns the room where the alleged offense occurred. The petitioner claims that he had given the keys to the main accused in good faith, unaware of their intentions. 4.1 Furthermore, the complainant and the main accused were in a long-term relationship and were planning to marry. The petitioner was not present at the scene of the incident as he was out of town. There is no evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime, and therefore, the FIR in question should be quashed qua him. 5. 4.1 Furthermore, the complainant and the main accused were in a long-term relationship and were planning to marry. The petitioner was not present at the scene of the incident as he was out of town. There is no evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime, and therefore, the FIR in question should be quashed qua him. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argues that the investigation is ongoing and that the truth will emerge during the investigation. He contends that the FIR cannot be quashed solely based on the contents of the petition/affidavit filed before this court, as these are yet to be investigated. 6. After hearing the arguments and reviewing the case file and the contents of the FIR, I find that the arguments presented before this Court and the grounds in the petition are factual assertions. No legal irregularity or illegality has been pointed out to justify interference from this Court. 7. The argument presented by the learned Public Prosecutor appears reasonable. 8. At this stage, the Court's primary role is to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists. If the answer is affirmative, the case should proceed to a thorough investigation and, depending on the outcome, either closure report or a subsequent trial, as the case may be, if a charge-sheet is filed. 9. It is a well-established principle that the discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., vested in this Court, should be exercised only when, on a bare reading of the FIR, no offense is made out against the accused who has approached the Court. 10. In the present case, no grounds fatal to the FIR have been made out to warrant its quashing. The truth will only emerge during the investigation or trial, and it is not for this Court to express any opinions on the matter at this early stage. 11. Allowing a petition for quashing the FIR is not justified unless there are compelling reasons to intervene in the ongoing legal proceedings. Moreover, the allegations in the FIR involve disputed questions of fact that need to be investigated and established. It would be inappropriate to reach a conclusion without examining the merits of the case. Quashing the FIR at this stage would not be justifiable. It is premature to make definitive conclusions regarding the veracity of the allegations. Moreover, the allegations in the FIR involve disputed questions of fact that need to be investigated and established. It would be inappropriate to reach a conclusion without examining the merits of the case. Quashing the FIR at this stage would not be justifiable. It is premature to make definitive conclusions regarding the veracity of the allegations. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow the legal process to unfold before drawing any final conclusions. 12. While it is crucial to protect the rights of the accused, it is equally important to maintain public faith in the enforcement of law and order and the proper administration of criminal justice. 13. After considering the arguments and the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that this is not a suitable case for quashing the FIR. 14. Consequently, there are no grounds to interfere. The petition is dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek remedy under law at the appropriate stage before the competent court, once the investigation is complete. 15. However, it is made clear that non-interference by this Court should not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits on the allegations made in the FIR and the petitioners averments herein. The investigating agency shall proceed further in accordance with the law, without being influenced by observations made here in above, which are only for the purpose of dismissal of the instant petition. 16. In the parting, I may also hasten to add that the petitioners shall be at liberty to take all their defence before the competent Court, at appropriate stage, including those taken before this Court, which is left open to be adjudicated.