Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73204 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44057 of 2024 Applicant :- Nasreen Sayeed @ Nasreen Fatma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Pratap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Raghvendra Pratap, 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 Charge-Sheet dated 29.06.2012, as well as entire proceedings registered in its pursuance as Criminal Case No.1854 of 2012, (State of U.P. Vs. Nasreen Sayeed), under Section 188 LP.C. P.S. Shahganj, District- Prayagraj, (arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2012), P.S.-Shahganj, District- Prayagraj, including the order of cognizance and summoning order dated 01.10.2012, passed by court below, presently pending before the Additional Chief Magistrate, 7th, District- Prayagraj. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that proceeding is barred by Section 195(1)(a) (i) of Cr.P.C. and cognizance taken against the applicant in the year 2012. Applicant challenged the proceedings and submitted that he had no knowledge regarding the aforesaid proceedings. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of C. Muniappan and other Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 0 Supreme (SC) 796, as well as the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Israr Ahmad Vs. State of U.P., Application U/s 482 No.12525 of 2023. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that since last 13 years applicant avoid the summons and has not taken any initiative to quash the proceedings and applicant's counsel submitted that applicant had no knowledge regarding summon, whereas, on record it is apparent that applicant moved exemption application before trial proceeding, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed. 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. Considering the argument raised by applicant's counsel and perused the record, it is evident that applicant has challenged the proceedings after about 13 years of cognizance taken by court below, which is very much delay, as applicant has avoided the trial proceedings for such a long period, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the applicant in the present case. No interference is warranted at this stage. 8. The present 482 application of applicant-Nasreen Sayeed @ Nasreen Fatma, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. 9. However, if applicant moves discharge application before the concerned court below within two weeks from today, the court below shall decide his application in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of discharge application. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Nitin Verma (Justice Deepak Verma) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad