Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61252 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42025 of 2024 Applicant :- Ranjeet Kumar Alias Ranjeet Kumar Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Dubey,Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi 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 entire proceeding of the criminal case no.184 of 2024 (state versus Pradeep and others) arising out of charge-sheet dated 22.5.2023 filed in case crime no.0126 of 2023, under section 323, 324, 354A, 452, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station- Kokhraj, District- Kaushambi, pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kaushambi as well as the charge-sheet dated 22.5.2023 and cognizance order dated passed in the aforesaid case. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that informant and her daughter were physically molested by the applicant. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. From the contents of FIR, evidence collected during investigation as well as the statements of the victim and informant recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., no offence under alleged sections is made out. He next submitted that case of molestation of informant and her daughter is, prima facie, made out against co-accused. Summoning by learned Magistrate under alleged sections, is illegal and arbitrary in manner. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. Learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant. Informant and her daughter, in their statements, have supported the prosecution case and NBW has been issued against the applicant. He next submitted that arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be considered and examined at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of facts. 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 & 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. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 7. The present 482 application of applicant- Ranjeet Kumar Alias Ranjeet Kumar Patel, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. 8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, 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. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad