ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the victim-complainant in FIR No.36/2020 dated 02.02.2020, under Sections 376 -D, 418, and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (in short, the "IPC"), registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Alwar. It seems that the appellant was residing in Jaipur for preparation and coaching for competitive exams when she was introduced to respondent no.2 (Radhakrishan Meena), namely, the main accused, somewhere between January and March 2018. They exchanged phone numbers and have been in contact with each other since. While the appellant claims that respondent no.2 proposed marriage, to which she had consented, respondent no.2 denied expressing any such desire. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the appellant and respondent no.2 developed a physical relationship in January 2018 itself. They travelled together to other places like Hanumangarh, etc. The appellant claims that respondent no.2 was actively assisted by his co-accused, namely, respondent nos.3 to 7 in duping the appellant on the pretext that respondent no.2 would marry her, thus, forcing her to continue with the physical relationship. As the marriage did not materialize between the parties, the appellant lodged the subject-FIR with specific allegations of committing rape on her, by respondent no.2, under the false pretext of marriage. She also made various allegations against respondent nos.3 to 7, but none of them had been attributed commission of rape on her. The appellant's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the "Cr.P.C.") was recorded in which she reiterated the allegations made by her in the complaint.

3. It seems that upon investigation, the police initially found that a prima facie case under the above-mentioned provisions of IPC was made out, though later on, the Investigating Agency resiled from its stand and supported respondent no.2 (Radhakrishan Meena) and his co-accused.

4. Eventually, the main accused, namely, respondent no.2 (Radhakrishan Meena) and his co-accused approached the High Court, seeking quashing of the FIR and all the proceedings arising therefrom. In this regard, powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C were invoked. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court accepted that petition and has quashed the proceedings, with a direction to the Investigating Agency to submit a closure report.

5. At this stage, it may also be noted that while the appellant - victim is employed as a Guard in the Jail Department, the main accused - respondent no.2 (Radhakrishan Meena) is serving in the Customs Department and is presently posted in the State of Gujarat.

6. We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the material placed by them on record.

7. This Court has, from time to time, evolved the outer limits and contours within which powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be safely exercised by a High Court with a view to prevent the abuse of process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. Such parameters ordinarily dissuade a High Court from travelling into the realm of factual issues. The High Court, therefore, while invoking its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold would generally consider and rely upon the contents of an FIR. Further, the High Court will proceed on the premise of whether such contents, even if taken as gospel truth, would constitute a prima facie offence or not. We find that the High Court, in the instant case, had to take external aid to form a definite opinion that no offence under Section 376 or other related provisions of IPC was made ou