Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55248 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32858 of 2024 Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Bansalalias Ravindra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 16.02.2024 as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.75 of 2024 (State vs.Ravindra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.324 of 2023, under sections 420, 367, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. Evidence collected during investigation is not sufficient to prosecute the applicant in the present case. After submission of charge-sheet, court has framed charges under sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the applicant is bonafide purchaser having no concern with the alleged incident and one person has been exonerated by the Investigating Officer. Charge framed against the applicant is not supported by any evidence and is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Md.Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and others in Criminal Appeal No.1695 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6211 of 2007) decided on 04.09.2009. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed. 6. 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 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. 7. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex 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 and another, 2023 Live Law (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 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 8. Considered the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. From perusal of charge, which was framed on 16.02.2024, is just and proper, supported by evidence and have been framed after hearing the accused persons. In view of the Apex Court judgement in Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreres Reddy & another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642 decided on August, 7, 2023, paras 5 to 8 are relevant for the said purpose. The same are being quoted below:- "5. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has elaborately discussed the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 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. 8. The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is very limited. The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all. 9. At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the charge-sheet. The High Court by the impugned order has done exactly the same." 9. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicant- Ravindra Kumar Bansal, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad