HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20228 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 30.03.2018 and cognizance order dated 13.08.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 342 of 2018 (State of U.P. vs. Nirankar Verma) arising out of case crime no. 221 of 2018, u/s 304, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Sant Kabir Nagar. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against two persons thereafter, the applicant's trial was separated from the other co-accused and the charge has been framed against the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant case is similarly situated to the co-accused who, challenge the proceeding by way of filing the connected Application U/S 482 No. 9799/2021 and in the present proceeding trial court is examining the prosecution witnesses. He next submitted that on perusal of material evidence collected by the Investigating Officer no offence under the aforesaid sections has been made. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kumar Tripathi, Ronak Chaturvedi, G.A. Nirankar Verma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the argument raised by applicant's counsel and submitted that after framing of charge, the trial court has examine P.W.-1 as a prosecution witness and other witnesses are being examined. 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 528 BNSS 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 528 BNSS 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. 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." 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, NA528 No. 20228 of 2025 2 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 528 BNSS as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 8. From the record, it is apparent that the trial court has examined P.W.-1 as a prosecution witness and other witnesses are being examined. The applicant's case is separated from the other co-accused. The examination of disputed question of facts and defense of the accused are vested to the trial court. The trial court is the proper court which shall examine the evidence and facts produced by both the parties. By catena of judgment passed by Apex Court wherein it has been held that the court should avoid to appreciate or examine the evidence/facts while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It should be used sparingly. In present case, trial court is examining prosecution witnesses. Prima facie, no illegality in trial proceedings. No interference is warranted. The present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 9, 2025 Nisha NA528 No. 20228 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- nisha kumari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad