Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55977 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8816 of 2020 Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Mishra @ Pravin Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 13 of 2017, dated 08.04.2017 in Crime No. 464 of 2016, under Section 323 IPC and 3(2)(5) ka SC/ST Act-1989, Police Station- Mauaima, District- Prayagraj filed against the applicant and further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of special S.T. No. 99 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 464 of 2016, under Section 323 IPC and 3(2)(5) ka SC/ST Act-1989, Police Station- Mauaima, District- Prayagraj, pending before the court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act (State of U.P. vs. Praveen Mishra). 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is an Advocate. Allegation alleged in the first information report is false & baseless and not supported by any cogent evidence. Summoning by learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind. I.O. has not collected any material evidence against the applicant to prosecute him in the present case. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that prosecution story is supported by medical examination report and applicant is not appearing before the Trial Court, as such, N.B.W. has been issued against the applicant, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. The present 482 application of applicant- Praveen Kumar Mishra @ Pravin Mishra, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. 9. 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. 10. 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 :- 16.4.2025/Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad