Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87628 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38387 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramashankar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijai Shanker Tripathi,Vinod Shankar Tripathi 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 charge-sheet dated 28.11.2022, cognizance order dated 22.05.2023 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.532 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.101 of 2022 (State vs. Rama Shankar Pandey and others), under sections 323, 504, 452, 325 I.P.C., Police Station Bahariya, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Court no.2, Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged in the FIR that in the night of 24.05.2022, named accused persons entered in the house of the informant and assaulted the son of the informant, as a result he has received injury and fracture. It is submitted that at the time of incident, applicant was not present at the spot. Applicant is government servant working in Indian Railway as a Gateman of Gate No. (Railway Crossing) 36-C at Railway Station, Tharawai, District Prayagraj. He was present at his posting place at the time of incident and its support he has filed attendance register as Annexure-8 to the application. He next argued that provision of Section 197 Cr.P.C. bar to take cognizance and lodging the FIR, no permission has been taken. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submitted that the argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not present at the time of incident, cannot be decided at this stage. Moreover, it is further stated that sanction is required in such type of cases where act has done in the discharge of his duty. But here fact is different. Injured has received grievous injury and prima- facie offence is made out against the applicant and other submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant is disputed question on facts which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. 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 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 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. 7. Considered the arguments raised by both the parties. The claim of the applicant cannot be considered and decided at this stage. Prosecution can get sanction at later stage if it requires. There is catena of judgment passed by this Court and Apex Court that no cognizance can be taken if facts came to light that the acts complained of were done in discharge of the official duties. The fact here as per FIR version is that the applicant and other co- accused entered in the house of the applicant and assaulted the injured and this act cannot be said that it is done in discharging the official duty. The plea of alibi cannot be examine at this stage. The submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant having no force and the contents of FIR is supported by medical examination report as well as statement of witnesses. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicant- Ramashankar Pandey, is hereby, dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad