JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam. 2. The instant criminal petition under Section 528 , Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred seeking setting aside and quashing of a charge-sheet submitted on 25.04.2023 in connection with Dibrugarh Police Station Case no. 1917/2021 and entire proceedings of Police Report Case [PRC] no. 2753/2022, presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh. 3. In the First Information Report [FIR] lodged on 02.10.2021 by the respondent no. 2 as the informant, it was inter alia alleged that she was the insured person in respect of a four-wheeler vehicle bearing registration no. AS-22/G-6973 [Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire VXI] [‘the subject-vehicle’, for short] and the subject-vehicle was insured under an insurance policy obtained from M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 12.02.2021 to 11.02.2024. The informant-respondent no. 2 is the registered owner of the subject-vehicle. The subject-vehicle met with an accident on 08.07.2021 and a claim was registered against the insurance policy taken for the subject-vehicle with the insurer, M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. at the instance of the respondent no. 2-insured. 4. The two petitioners herein have stated that they are insurance investigators from M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. 5. In the FIR, the informant had further alleged that the two petitioners in order to investigate the insurance claim made in respect of the subject-vehicle, fraudulently recorded the statements of the informant and her husband practicing deceit. 6. The investigation of Dibrugarh Police Station Case no. 1917/2021, registered for the offences under Sections 420 /406, INDIAN PENAL CODE , was carried out on registration of the FIR and upon conclusion of investigation, the I.O. laid a charge-sheet vide Charge-Sheet no. 195 on 31.05.2022 finding sufficient materials against the two accused persons namely, Hayagrib Biswas and Tirtha Bol, that is, the two petitioners herein for committing the offences under Section 420 and Section 406 , IPC. 7. In this criminal petition, the two petitioners have annexed documents which are stated to be part of their investigation carried out against the claim for insurance made by the respondent no. 2-insured-informant in respect of the damages caused to the subject-vehicle in an accident, stated to have occurred on 08.07.2021. 7. In this criminal petition, the two petitioners have annexed documents which are stated to be part of their investigation carried out against the claim for insurance made by the respondent no. 2-insured-informant in respect of the damages caused to the subject-vehicle in an accident, stated to have occurred on 08.07.2021. Two statements of the insured-informant and her husband respectively, are annexed to the criminal petition. The petitioners have projected that on the basis of the information collected by them during the course of investigation against the claim, more particularly, the two recorded statements of the insured-informant and her husband, it had emerged that when the subject-vehicle had proceeded from the house of the insured-informant on 08.07.2021, it took an unknown passenger on board against a rent fare of Rs. 50/- collected by the driver of the subject-vehicle. It was on the basis of such finding, the insurance claim was rejected on the ground that the subject-vehicle was involved in hire and reward. 8. Evidently, reliance has been placed on the documents collected during the course of investigation carried out by the petitioners as insurance investigators for setting aside and quashing of the Charge-Sheet no. 195 on 31.05.2022 and the proceedings of PRC Case no. 2753/2022. 9. The principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC vis-a-vis the quashing of an FIR are well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp [1] SCC 335, observed 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. [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 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. [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. 103. [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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified 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 extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. 10. The law is settled that it is the allegations made in the FIR which are to be looked into to find out whether the ingredients of the offence alleged are made out or not. When a charge-sheet is sought to be quashed, it is the materials collected during the course of investigation are to be looked into. For quashing of a criminal proceedings including a charge-sheet/FIR ordinarily, materials relied upon cannot be looked into by the Court. Only in very rare and exceptional cases when the defence materials convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous, the defence materials can be looked into by the Court. It is true that it is not an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of considering the petition under Section 528 , BNSS . If such materials produced by the defence convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd or totally concocted and the materials are of unimpeachable and sterling character, the same can be looked into. 11. When keeping into consideration the afore-stated propositions of law, the materials whereupon the petitioners have placed reliance for setting aside and quashing of the proceedings of PRC Case no. 2753/2022 and the Charge- Sheet no. 195 dated 31.05.2022 are given a look, this Court is of the unhesitant view that the materials produced by the petitioners do not fall in the category mentioned above. 12. 2753/2022 and the Charge- Sheet no. 195 dated 31.05.2022 are given a look, this Court is of the unhesitant view that the materials produced by the petitioners do not fall in the category mentioned above. 12. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons assigned, this Court does not find any merit on the point urged to entertain this criminal petition. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. 13. The petitioners who have been charge-sheeted have all the liberty under the law to disprove the allegations brought against them during the course of the trial. It is further made clear that the observations made above are only for the purpose of examining whether a case is made out for setting aside and/or quashing of the proceedings of PRC no. 2753/2022 and therefore, the observations shall not be construed as observations made in respect of the merits of the pending trial.