HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13877 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Final Report No.184 of 2022 (Shakuntala Devi Vs. Virendra @ Pappu), arising out of Case Crime No. 94 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station- Dibai, District- Bulandshahar, pending in the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar as well as summoning order dated 23.12.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar. 3. It is alleged in the first information report that applicants took Rs. 8,00,000/- from the informant to fix a job in Railway Department, thereafter, issued forged training and transfer letter in favour of the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations alleged in the first information report are false, baseless and not supported by any cogent evidence. The amount which is said to be transferred in the account, is not corroborating the facts narrated in the statements of the informant. No amount has been transferred in the account of the applicants. He next submits that instant first information report has been lodged with malicious intention only to harass the applicants. During investigation, applicants compromised the matter with the informant and I.O. submitted final report, thereafter, informant moved protest application, then, Court concerned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Kumar, Pavanesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dharam Singh, G.A., Kumari Poonam Rajpoot, Prem Babu Verma Virendra Alias Pappu And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) allowed the protest application and took cognizance and issued summons against the applicants. Cognizance/ Summoning order passed by learned Magistrate, is without application of judicial mind. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that amount has been transferred in the account of applicants but applicants have filed details of different bank account. Moreover, other submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS. 5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and perused the entire record. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of facts. 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 528 B.N.S.S. 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 528 B.N.S.S. 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 & 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 NA528 No. 13877 of 2025 2 (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 B.N.S.S. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 7. The present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 23, 2025 Aditya NA528 No. 13877 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad