Order : (KULDEEP MATHUR, J.) By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc petition may kindly be allowed and FIR No.24/2025, has been registered at P.S., Sangad, District Jaisalmer for offences u/s 74, 75(2), 115(2), 331(6), 61(2), OF B.N.S. 2023. And entire proceeding carried out in furtherance of such FIR may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners…….” 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent no. 2- Dilbar Khan lodged the impugned FIR against the present petitioners alleging inter alia that on 23.02.2025, the petitioners forcibly entered the house of the complainant’s sister and molested her. They also started pressurizing her to get married to the petitioner no. 3. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material as made available before this Court. 4. Having gone through the case file, this Court finds that prior to the lodging of the present FIR, on 04.03.2025, an FIR no. 21/2025 was also lodged at Police Station Sangad, district Jaisalmer against the respondent no. 2 as well as Roze Khan, Imam Khan, Yaaru Khan, etc. for the offences punishable under sections 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 326, 331(6) and 189(4) of BNS with an allegation against the respondent no. 2 to have attacked the family members of the petitioner no. 1 with an intent to kill them. This Court further finds that both the parties have deep rooted enmity and have been aggressors towards each other and the bare perusal of the impugned FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences. 5. Having gone through the FIR, this Court further finds that in the impugned FIR serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. In the considered opinion of this Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot minutely go into the correctness of the allegations levelled against the accused persons. This Court at this stage is neither expected to scan the entire material on record of the case nor record its definite finding after examining the material available in the case diary for quashing the aforesaid FIR. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. This Court at this stage is neither expected to scan the entire material on record of the case nor record its definite finding after examining the material available in the case diary for quashing the aforesaid FIR. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has illustrated the situations wherein, the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (1) SCC 335 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has illustrated the situations wherein, the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Court illustrated as under:- “(a) 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; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or ’complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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; (g) 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.” 7. In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the precedent law, this Court is not inclined to exercise the powers vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in question. 8. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition as well as stay application are disposed of.