Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93543 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43699 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava 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 No. 01 of 2023 dated 07.11.2023, impugned Cognizance order dated 21.03.2024 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 8272 of 2024 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 0377 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kothibhar, District- Maharajganj, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Awar Khand)/Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that applicant, who is student and preparing for competitive examinations, living with the informant and told to informant that he is having approach with higher Army Officers and if informant would invest money, then, he would get job in Army. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence that amount has transferred in the account of the applicant. On perusal of FIR, it is apparent that amount has been transferred in the account of some other person. Applicant is a student. He next submits that Investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet under Section 406, 420 and 506 IPC, thereafter, trial court took cognizance and issued summons under Section 406, 420 IPC but as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court both proceedings cannot run simultaneously. Moreover, on perusal of contents of FIR, no offence is made out. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions raised by applicant's counsel and submits that on perusal of contents of FIR and statements of other witnesses, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. It is also apparent from the contents of FIR and statements of witnesses, that applicant took Rs.1,00,000/- cash from the informant and rest amount was transferred by bank transaction. Others submissions 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. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned Magistrate has summoned the applicant under Sections 406 & 420 IPC as charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer in the said sections. Trial Court while framing the charge can remove this defect after examining the material evidence collected by the I.O. Applicant can also raise this objection at the time of framing of charge. The other 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 & 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 application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within three weeks from today 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. 9. For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad