Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117895 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44562 of 2024 Applicant :- Kaushal Sharma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- 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 entire criminal proceeding of case No.9266 of 2024 (State Vs. Kaushal Sharma and others), arising out of case crime No.203 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Lohamandi, District-Agra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.5 Agra as well as charge sheet dated 23.12.2023 alongwith cognizance order dated 23.05.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.5 Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant first information report has been lodged by the informant as the daughter of the informant is married with applicant no. 1 and earlier daughter of the informant lodged first information report against the applicants under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending between the parties. Instant first information report has been lodged with malicious intention only to harass the applicants. Investigating Officer has not any cogent evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions raised by applicants' counsel and submits that submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants 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. Further, prosecution story is supported by medical examination report. 5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. On perusal of record, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. 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 & 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 applicants surrender before the concerned court within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their 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 applicants before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad