Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82077 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39648 of 2024 Applicant :- Dinesh Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Niraj Tiwari,Rohit Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 28.3.2024; cognizance order dated 2.7.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate-3 Prayagraj as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 470 of 2024 (State versus Dinesh Jaiswal) arising out of Case crime no. 59 of 2024 under sections 354Kha, 504, 506, Police station Ghurpur, District Prayagraj pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-3 Prayagraj. 3. Instant F.I.R. has been lodged through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with allegation that applicant, who is brother-in-law of opposite party no.2, entered into the house of opposite party no. 2 and physically molested her. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Civil dispute is pending between the parties and on that account he has been implicated in the present case. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in Rakhab Birani and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 823 wherein it has been held that during pendency of civil suit between the parties, no criminal proceedings can be initiated. It is next submitted that I.O, has not collected any evidence against the applicant. Earlier, the informant made a complaint against the applicant but the I.O. has not collected evidence and found that instant complaint has been lodged with malicious intention on account of civil dispute. The summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicant, in such circumstances. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case and submitted that opposite party no. 2,in her statement recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., has supported the prosecution story. Prima facie offence is made out against the applicant and reliance placed by counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the present case. It is next submitted that submission raised by counsel for the applicant is based on factual dispute. The trial court has to examine the same. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no power to examine the factual dispute of the matter. 5. 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 applicant. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant in the aforesaid case. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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. 7. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. However, as requested, if the applicant moves discharge application before the court concerned, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Meenu Singh Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad