HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32850 of 2025 Court No. - 74 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present 528 BNSS application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 29.05.2025; cognizance order dated 21.07.2025, passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.27, Agra as well as entire proceedings of Session Case No. 1402 of 2025, (State Vs. Vishal Dhakre and others), Case Crime No. 70 of 2025, under Sections 74/115(2), 352, 117(2), 118(1) B.N.S. and 7/8 POCSO Act, and 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Barhan, District Agra. 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that applicants outraged the modesty of the informant's niece and assaulted the informant. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Instant F.I.R. has been lodged on account of some dispute with regard to transaction of money. Prima facie, there is no evidence against the applicants to prosecute in the present case. During investigation, the I.O. has not collected any material evidence but submitted charge sheet against the applicants. The learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind, summoned the applicants. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicants, in such circumstances. 4. Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that submissions raised by the counsel of the applicant is disputed question of facts, which cannot be considered, at this stage. Moreover, the I.O. has collected the material Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rakesh Kumar Garg, Yash Garg, G.A. Vishal Dhakare And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) evidence against the applicants and informant received as many as seven injuries. The victim in her statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has supported the prosecution story. 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 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. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The inquiry officer has found material evidence against the applicant. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant in the aforesaid case. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 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 NA528 No. 32850 of 2025 2 made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS. 8. The present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 14, 2025 Meenu Singh NA528 No. 32850 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad