Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129266 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33087 of 2024 Applicant :- Sriniwas Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Parvesh Kumar Pandey,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey 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 the charge sheet dated 25.07.2023, submitted in Case Crime No. 21 of 2022, under Sections 307/34 IPC, Police Station- Rajgarh, District- Mirzapur (Annexure No.7 to the affidavit), as well as the impugned cognizance-cum-summoning order dated 02.09.2023, (Annexure No.9 to the affidavit) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Mirzapur, in Case No. 487 of 2023 (State vs. Sriniwash Singh and others), under Sections 307/34 IPC, Police Station- Rajgarh, District- Mirzapur, arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2022, and quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 487 of 2023 (State vs. Sriniwash Singh and others), under Sections 307/34 IPC, Police Station Rajgarh, District Mirzapur, arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2022, pending in the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Mirzapur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is not named in the first information report. Due to village party bandi, applicant has been implicated in the present case. Applicant's name surfaced in the present case on the basis of second statement of the injured. There is no cogent evidence to prosecute the applicant in the present case. Allegations alleged in the first information report are false and baseless. Applicant was not present at the time of alleged incident, which is clear from the C.C.TV. footage produced by the accused-applicant before the I.O. Cognizance and summoning by learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind. He therefore submits, no prosecution could proceed against the applicant, in such circumstances. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions raised by applicant's counsel and submits that injured has specifically mentioned the name of the applicant and, prima facie, there is evidence against the applicant. Injury report is also supporting the prosecution case. Other submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be considered and examined at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From the record, It is apparent that injured has specially mentioned the name of the applicant and injury report is also supporting the prosecution case. Prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. 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. 6. 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 & 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 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 7. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad