Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70324 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5660 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Urmila Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Kameshwar Rao, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The instant application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Misc. Application No.44/XII/2023 (Ramu Kumar Vs. Smt. Urmila & Others), under Sections 494 I.P.C., Police Station-Raya, District-Mathura, arising out of Complaint Case No.23537 of 2023, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Mathura. 3. Brief facts of the case are; a complaint has been lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant and eight others alleging therein that marriage of applicant was solemnized with opposite party no.2 in the year 2016, out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters. The applicant never stayed peacefully with opposite party no.2. On 11.06.2022 applicant was taken by her father to his house under pretext of some ceremony being there. The applicant took away jewellery as detailed in the complaint and went along with her father. She did not return and the opposite party no.2 came to know that on 06.11.2022 she has performed marriage with one Girivar, who was known to her prior to her marriage with opposite party no.2. The aforesaid marriage was performed in presence of other family members. After recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicant has been summoned. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence regarding the fact that the applicant has performed marriage with one Girivar. Girivar is a married person, therefore, there is no question of applicant performing marriage with him. Several other grounds have been taken on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her. The circumstances which, as per records, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon in the affidavit. He further submits that the entire proceedings be quashed by this Court as the same is an abuse of the process of Court. 5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that from perusal of the complaint, statements as recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. All the other contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be seen here. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application. 7. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is to yet to commence only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are abuse of the process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:- (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143, (ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the aforesaid order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 9. The prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. 10. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad