HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 356 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.07.2024, cognizance order dated 04.09.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.1603 of 2024 (State vs. Rajesh Murjani and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0332 of 2024, under sections 325, 323, 504, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bareilly. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicants on account of some prior enmity, assaulted the informant and her husband. Informant received fracture. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is litigation pending against each other and on account of malice intention/motive, instant FIR has been lodged. On perusal of FIR and other material evidence, no offence is made out against the applicants. The date of incident is 14.03.2024 and present FIR lodged on 12.04.2024, there is no explanation of delay. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon Paras 16 & 20 of the Apex Court judgment in Pradeep Kumar Kesearwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another in Criminal Appeal No.3831 of 2025. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submitted that allegation alleged in the FIR prima-facie discloses offence against the applicants and informant has received fracture and medical examination report is supporting the prosecution case. It is admitted case that there is prior enmity between the parties. Submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed question of fact which cannot be examined at this stage. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sonali Murjani And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. 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 and another, 2023 Live Law (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 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 7. Considered the submission of both the parties. From perusal of FIR and other medical examination report, prima-facie offence is made out against the applicants. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicants in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani's case (supra) is not applicable in the present case. No interference is warranted. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application of applicants- Sonali Murjani, Rajesh Murjani & Monika Bhalla is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. September 10, 2025 SKD A482 No. 356 of 2025 2 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad