Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75901 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44144 of 2024 Applicant :- Sandeep Alias Honey Jotwani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pandey Balkrishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vijay Tripathi,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.113/2022 dated 13.04.2022, cognizance order dated 10.05.2022 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.5302 of 2022 (State vs. Sandeep @ Honey) arising out of Case Crime No.144 of 2021, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Shahganj, District Agra, pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that informant's marriage was solemnized on 17.04.2016 with the applicant and informant's father had spent considerable amount of dowry but the applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry amount, hence, they started demanding additional dowry in the form of Rs.5 lakhs and unfortunately on 08.06.2017 she was abandoned by her husband and his family members. Opposite party no.2 has filed application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court and Court had ordered to pay Rs.7,000/- as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 and applicant being aggrieved viral morphed photographs of opposite party no.2 with some other person and marked photographs are available on 'Google'. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. All allegations alleged in the FIR are false, baseless and not supported by any evidence. The informant/opposite party no.2 has already preferred an application under section 340 Cr.P.C. and his application has been entertained by court and the proceeding initiated. Cognizance taken by learned magistrate is abuse of the process of the court. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submitted that from the record, it is apparent that charges have been framed against the applicant and P.W.- 1 has been examined by trial court. Trial court examined the witnesses. It is next submitted that submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant is based on facts related and trial court has to examine the facts. 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 charges have been framed and this application has filed to quash the cognizance and summoning order after framing of charge by the trial court. This Court is not going to interfere the trial proceeding. This application is filed at belated stage. Trial court has to examine the witnesses of facts. Moreover, this Court does not find any illegality or abuse of the process of the court while taking cognizance and summoning the applicant. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicant- Sandeep @ Honey Jotwani, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 SKD Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad