HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40749 of 2024 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 09.08.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 16.09.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.14536 of 2024, (State versus Pankaj Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.347 of 2024, under Sections 281, 125, 106(1), 324(4) BNS, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, pending in the court of CJM, Hapur. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that father of opposite party no.2 was going by motorcycle then delivery van (choota hathi) bearing Registration No.DL 1 LAE 8531 hit the motorcycle as a result thereof father of opposite party no.2 had died and one person received grievous injuries. 4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and allegation alleged in the FIR is false and baseless. The fact is that the motorcycle hit the applicant's vehicle behind back and received injury and applicant admitted the injured in the hospital. The independent witness statement collected during investigation which is not supporting the prosecution case as well as the status of vehicle after accident is also not supporting the prosecution story. It has been next submitted that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pankaj Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by the counsel for the applicant and submitted that the statement of informant as well as injured supporting the prosecution witness and it is a case of hitting the motorcycle from back side and one person has died on account of incident, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. 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./528 BNSS 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./528 BNSS 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. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The I.O. has collected material evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case. Moreover, the incident occurred and one person died. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 8. 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 528 BNSS. NA528 No. 40749 of 2024 2 9. The present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 18, 2025 I.A.Siddiqui NA528 No. 40749 of 2024 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad