As per case facts, two Petitions were filed seeking quashing of an FIR alleging sexual assault under false promise of marriage, financial fraud, and criminal breach of trust. The Complainant ... alleged that Petitioner No. 1, a doctor, promised marriage and induced her to take large loans by promising repayment, subsequently transferring a portion to Petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 later evaded repayment, blocked her, and married someone else. The Petitioner argued that the Complainant, a serving police official, concocted the story for extortion, citing prior false complaints, a clinic incident, and repayment of an alleged friendly loan. The State countered that a detailed inquiry found the Complainant's allegations correct, showing connivance to sexually exploit and defraud her. The question arose whether the High Court should quash the FIR at this preliminary stage, especially considering the Complainant was a married woman, and if the Petitioner's defence could negate the prima facie case. Finally, the High Court held that allegations were grave and supported by preliminary inquiry, involving more than just a false promise of marriage. It refused to conduct a mini-trial, finding that Petitioner's arguments constituted a defence to be presented during trial, and the prima facie ingredients of offence were met. Thus, the Petitions were dismissed.