HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7303 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; 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 04-08-2024; cognizance order dated 01-10-2024 in Case No.2080 of 2024 (arising out of case crime no. 34 of 2024) under sections 420, 408 IPC, Police Station Duddhi, District Sonbhadra, pending in the Court of Civil Judge(J.D)/ Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi Sonbhadra. 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that applicant, being Branch Manager in Bharat Financial Inclusion Ltd. (BFIL) subsidiary of IndusInd Bank, and other two employees, embezzled the amount of Rs.5578775/-. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Prima facie, there is no evidence against the applicant to prosecute in the present case. During investigation, the I.O. has not collected any material evidence but submitted charge sheet against the applicant. The charge sheet is not supported by any independent witness nor the allegation with regard to embezzlement of the aforesaid amount is supported by any evidence to prosecute the applicant in the present case. The learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind, summoned the applicant. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicants, in such circumstances. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. submitted that submissions raised by the counsel of the applicant is disputed question of facts, which cannot be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bed Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Indrajeet .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) considered at this stage. Moreover, from the statement of the informant, who is Branch Manager of the said bank, during enquiry found that applicant has embezzled the amount of Rs.2594460/-. Prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. The I.O. has collected the material evidence against the applicant and other co-accused. 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. 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 applicant. The inquiry officer has found material evidence with regard to embezzlement of the amount 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. 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 Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu NA528 No. 7303 of 2025 2 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. 9. The present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 10, 2025 Meenu Singh NA528 No. 7303 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad