HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11629 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; 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 19-10-2022; summoning order dated 02-11-2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur; as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 17467 of 2022 (State Vs. Vendor Deblu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0043 of 2020, under sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police Station-Muskara, District Hamirpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. 3. Instant F.I.R. has been lodged by SBI Branch Manager against the applicant. Vide order dated 27.08.2025, counsel for the applicant was directed to serve a copy of the petition to the counsel for the State Bank of India. Counsel for the applicant submits that clerk of Mr. Satish Chaturvedi refused to receive the notice as instant F.I.R. has been lodged in individual capacity. 4. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that applicant being Branch Manager of SBI, branch Muskara, District Hamirpur embezzled the amount of Rs.22 lac. The allegation alleged in the F.I.R. is false and baseless. The inquiry has been conducted and F.I.R. has been registered after transfer of the applicant from the said branch. The allegation with regard to embezzlement of amount of Rs.22 lac, is not supported by any evidence to prosecute the applicant in the present case. The statement of the informant as well as one witness, who conducted the inquiry, do not disclose offence in the alleged section. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet without collecting evidence and learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicants. He further submits that no prosecution could proceed against the applicants, in such circumstances. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Verma, Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jitendra Kumar Verma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 considered at this stage. Moreover, from the statement of the informant, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. The I.O. has recorded the statement of one Manoj Kumar Jain, Chief Branch Manager, which also discloses, prima facie offence against the applicant. 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 applicants 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 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 4, 2025 Meenu Singh NA528 No. 11629 of 2025 2 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad