HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4617 of 2024 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Case called out in revised list. No one appeared on behalf of applicants. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is present. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 12.10.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 13004 of 2023 (Smt. Kalpana Lodhi Vs. Sachin Rajput and Others) under Sections 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Mahila Thana, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC, (C.A.W.) Jhansi. 3. On perusal of record, it is evident that vide order dated 17.05.2024, the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre. As per Mediation report dated 28.09.2024, no agreement entered between the parties. 4. Counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that from perusal of the contents of complaint and statement, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. The summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper. 5. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Khare, G.A. Sachin Rajput And Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court.the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage. 6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. On perusal of statement, it is apparent that the opposite party no. 2 was physically and mentally tortured by the applicants and she was examined by the doctor. Prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. The Court is not going into merit of the case with regard to the conviction of the applicant.The Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, para 6 and 7 are quoted herein below:- " 6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial. 7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C." 7. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex A482 No. 4617 of 2024 2 Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 8. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. May 12, 2026 Meenu Singh A482 No. 4617 of 2024 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad