Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84787 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40428 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajaram And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Radha Kant Singh Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned orders dated 09.10.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Room no.2, Prayagraj in Criminal Revision No.554 of 2023 (Rajaram and others vs. State of U.P. & another), under section 397 Cr.P.C., summoning order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Room No.12, Allahabad as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1509 of 2022 (Pramod Kumar Dhuriya vs. Rajaram and others), under Sections 323, 504, 392 I.P.C.(Applicant no.1), under sections 323, 504 I.p.C. (Applicant No.2) and under sections 323, 504, 427 I.P.C. (Applicant No.3), P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Room No.12, Allahabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence under alleged section is made out against the applicants. 4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicants. Learned counsel for the informant states that offence is made out against the applicants. Learned trial court found material evidence against the applicants. On perusal of statement of the witnesses recorded under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and summoned the applicants. Thereafter, applicants filed revision and same has been rejected by order dated 09.10.2024. There is material evidence against the applicants. 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.From the record, it is apparent that prima-facie offence is made out against the applicants. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicant no.2 (Saroj Devi) and applicant no.3 (Sushil Kumar @ Sunil), is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. 8. However, it is directed that applicant no.1 (Rajaram) shall surrender before the concerned Court below within three weeks from today and in case applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 9. For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant no.1 (Rajaram) before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad