HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15246 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 summoning Order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.11 Jaunpur, as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 7203 /2024 (State Vs. Sudhanshu Singh @ Kundan Singh and another) arising out in Case Crime No. 204/2024 u/s 323, 504, 506, 307, 452, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11 Jaunpur. 3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 01.06.2024 the applicants came to the house of the informant, hurled abuse and assaulted him, as a result thereof, injured received various injuries. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of previous enmity as informant is senior advocate in District Jaunpur. The F.I.R. is false, baseless and not supported by any evidence. The applicant no. 1 is an advocate and applicant no. 2 is husband of applicant no. 1. Prima facie, there is no evidence against the applicants under Section 307 I.P.C. to prosecute in the present case. The learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind, summoned the applicants. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance over the paragraphs 25 to 27 and 29 of judgment of this Court passed in Crl. Appeal No.1180 of 2002 (Hardwari Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajneesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arti Patel And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) and 8 others Vs. State of U.P.). 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, the injured has received various injuries and prima facie offence is made out against the applicants under Section 307 I.P.C. 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 applicants. The applicants entered into the house of informant and brutally assaulted him with intention to kill. The F.I.R. also states that applicant no. 1 with intention to kill the informant pressed his neck. The inquiry report as well as the medical examination report, prima facie, dislcose offence under the alleged Sections. 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. NA528 No. 15246 of 2025 2 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 11, 2025 Meenu Singh NA528 No. 15246 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad