HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33977 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the quash/set-aside the summoning order/cognizance order dated 03.07.2024 passed by Learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Azamgarh arising out of Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 350/2023 (State Vs. Gyan Chand Yadav and another), U/s 34, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)r, 3(1)s, 3(2)va SC/ST Act, P.S. Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh. 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that informant lodged a complaint against the applicants and Gram Pradhan that they are raising construction over the gaon sabha land in that contest and he was called by Lekhpal. When he reached at the spot, the named accused persons assaulted the informant and used caste abusive language. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention. It is further submitted that one day before a challani report with regard to Sections 151, 107 & 116 of Cr.P.C. was submitted the proceeding was initiated against the applicants and in that dispute injured received injuries. The informant in the garb of that injury, lodged present F.I.R. It is further submitted that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation are not attracted against the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kshama Singh, Yashwant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Priya Ranjan Rai Gyan Chand Yadav And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and submitted that the informant and other persons have received injuries. As per the medical examination report of injured, a prima facie case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants. The statement of witnesses are supported the prosecution story. The other submission raised on behalf of the applicants with regard to facts cannot be considered at this stage. 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. Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel and perused the record, it is evident that prima facie offence is made out. The Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, para 6 and 7 are quoted herein below:- "6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial. 7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C." 8. 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 NA528 No. 33977 of 2025 2 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. 9. From the perusal of record, it is apparent that injured received injuries, which are supporting the prosecution story. In the statement of the witnesses and informant, a prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. On perusal of material evidence available on record, offence is made out against the applicants. No interference is warranted. The present application 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 14, 2025 Sanjeet NA528 No. 33977 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad