which undenrrines the petition itself. He further submitted that mere invocation of Section 482 Cr.p.C. cannot be zLll.owed to derail or obstruct the due course of law, particularly whr::r a pima facie case has alrr:afly been made out against tJre petitioner based on materials collected during investigation. In s;upport of his submissions, he relied upon the decisions irL the case of Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koleyr, statingt that while the High Court can quash proceedings if the e ccused places unimpeachable documents that demolish the case, in the present case, no such documents have been placed. The 1x:titioners have merely made bald assertions without any material to back their defence. Therefore, the criminal proceedings mus- be allowed to continue in accordance with law. Further, in thr case of Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2 wherein the Hcn,lrle Supreme Court laid down a four-step test to assess whether quashing is justified. He submitted that none of ttre steps have, been satisfied in the present case. There is no "sterling or impec:able" materia_l produced, the factual allegations in the complaint have not been ruled out, ancl the petitioners, defence is wholly ur substantiated. Hence, quashing the proceedings at this stage wo-lld amount to prematurely souttling a valid prosecution. He furtt er relied upon
