HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13575 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 22.09.2024; cognizance/summoning order dated 19.12.2024 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Case No.984/2024 (State vs. Shivam Jaiswal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.06 of 2024, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 1.P.C., Police Station-Ahraura, District-Mirzapur pending in the court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fast/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegation of embezzlement of Rs.11 lac is false, baseless and not supported by any evidence. He next submits that applicant challenged the FIR by filing Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 5700 of 2024 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order 12.04.2024 passed interim order, in favour of applicant. Counsel for the applicant submits that on perusal of statement and evidence collected during investigation, no offence is made out against the applicant. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the arguments raised by applicants' counsel and submits that arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are factual aspects of the matter, which cannot be considered at this stage. The applicant is named in the F.I.R. and informant has made allegation against the applicant and other co-accused with regard to embezzlement of Rs.11 lac. On perusal of record, it is apparent that accused persons with malicious intention, handed over the fabricated and fabricated bond to the informant. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Udai Prakash Deo Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mainudin .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 applicant. Record reveals that applicant and other co-accused cheated various person's amount and misappropriated the same. 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. 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 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. September 15, 2025 Meenu Singh NA528 No. 13575 of 2025 2 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad