Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83273 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36219 of 2024 Applicant :- Mainooddin Khan And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. In compliance of previous order dated 17.04.2025, learned A.G.A. has obtain instructions. On the basis of instructions, he points out that neither summons nor bailable warrants were served upon the applicants, however, showing the applicants absconding non-bailable warrants have been issued. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri P.K. Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State, and perused the record. 3. The applicants have preferred the instant application challenging summoning order dated 23.12.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 9821 of 2017, State v. Mainuddin Khan and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 129 of 2016, U/s 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Saiyad Raza, District Chandauli 4. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged against the applicants by the O.P. No. 2 who is a Junior Engineer in Electricity Department, regarding theft of transformer by the alleged accused persons. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicants have been summoned by the court concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. From the recovery memo it is clear that no recovery was made from the applicants nor they were arrested from the spot. However, due to village party-bandi they have been dragged in the alleged offence. 6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that from the version of first information report and the statements of charge-sheet witnesses, namely, Ramashrya and Shiv Vilas it is clear that the allegations levelled against the applicants are correct. It is next contended by learned counsel for the State that other contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact, which may not be taken into consideration by this Court under the present jurisdiction. 7. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the present jurisdiction to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments: (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and lastly (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 9. In view of the above, no interference is called for. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet and the proceedings of the case is refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. 10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad