ORDER essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Act are not attracted.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner was never involved at any stage in the alleged relationship between the prosecutrix and the co-accused. If the proceedings are permitted to continue, the same would result in gross miscarriage of justice and cause irreparable harm to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the present petition and quash the impugned FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings insofar as they relate to the present petitioner, in the interest of justice.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and submits that a bare reading of the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences and the involvement of the present petitioner, Ravindra Gurjar. At the stage of consideration of a petition for quashing, this Court is required to see only whether the allegations, if taken at face value, disclose the commission of any offence and not to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or adjudicate upon the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations.

8. Learned counsel for the State submits that the FIR clearly alleges that the present petitioner initially assured the prosecutrix that he would facilitate her marriage with co-accused Dinesh Gurjar and thereafter, when the prosecutrix sought to take legal recourse upon being deceived, the petitioner threatened her with dire consequences, including a threat to her life. Such allegations, at this stage, are sufficient to attract the ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of IPC. The allegation of criminal intimidation is specific in nature and discloses a clear intent to deter the prosecutrix from initiating legal action against the main accused.

9. Learned counsel for the State emphasizes that the petitioner seeks to prematurely stifle a legitimate prosecution by inviting this Court to appreciate facts and assess the credibility of allegations, which is impermissible in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the State prays that the present petition be dismissed.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the FIR as well as the material placed on record, this Court finds that the essential allegation relating to commission of the offence under Section 376 of IPC pertains exclusively to the alleged promise of marriage and consequent physical relationship between the prosecutrix and co-accused . There is no allegation whatsoever that the present petitioner had any physical relationship with the prosecutrix or that he played any role in inducing or deceiving her into consenting for such relationship. The entire narrative in the FIR attributes the act constituting the offence of rape to the principal accused Dinesh Gurjar alone.

11. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana and others v.

Bhajan Lal and others reported in of 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the criteria/categories as to under what circumstances the Court should exercise the power provided under Section 482 of CrPC or extraordinary jurisdiction provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the proceedings. The categories of the cases in which interference is permissible quoted by the Supreme Court, are 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 c