Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73667 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44149 of 2024 Applicant :- Raj Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Shukla,Subedar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Kumar Mishra,Devendra Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned charge-sheet No. 501/24 dated 16.08.2024, cognizance/ summoning order dated 25.09.2024 as well as to quash the entire proceedings of Case No.18241 of 2024 (State vs. Raj Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.481 of 2023, under sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegation alleged in the FIR is that the applicants earlier sold the property to some other person. Thereafter, with malice intention sold the property to informant/opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that allegation alleged in the FIR is false and baseless, not supported by any evidence and in view of the Apex Court judgment in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248, proceedings under sections 420 & 406 I.P.C. cannot run jointly. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that no offence under alleged section is made out against the applicants. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submits that submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed question of facts, which cannot be decided at this stage. From the record, it is apparent that the applicants sold the disputed property to some other person, thereafter, intentionally sold the property to the informant. Prima- facie, offence is made out against the applicants. Learned magistrate has rightly took cognizance and issued summons to the applicants. Moreover, he submits that earlier applicants filed writ petition and matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre but mediation failed and applicants with malice intention cheat the informant and executed sale deed in favour of the informant. 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. No interference is warranted. The present 482 application of applicants- Raj Singh, Jitendra @ Bibi, Jitendra Kumar & Sunder 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