Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137848 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 817 of 2025 Applicant :- Kaleem And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Atul Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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./528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of the Special Case No.301 of 2024 (State versus Tasleem and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0467 of 2024 whereby the investigating officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant no.1 in under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 of B.N.S. and against the applicant nos.2 and 3 in under Sections 351(3) and 352 of B.N.S., Police Station Bhojipura, District-Bareilly pending in the court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Bareilly and the Impugned Charge Sheet No.253 of 2024, dated 12.08.2024 in Special Case No.301 of 2024 (State versus Tasleem and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0467 of 2024 whereby the investigating officer has submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant no.1 in under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 of B.N.S. and against the applicant nos.2 and 3 in under Sections 351(3) and 352 of B.N.S., Police Station Bhojipura, District-Bareilly, pending in the court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Bareilly. 3. Instant first information report has been lodged with the allegation that the minor daughter of informant was entice away by named accused persons and when informant went to the applicants house, then, applicants threatened and intimidated the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicants are father, mother and brother of the main accused, namely, Tasleem with whom it is alleged that victim ran away and solemnized marriage. Applicants have been implicated in the present case being father, mother and brother of the main accused, namely, Tasleem. On perusal of contents of first information report as well as other material evidence available on record, no offence under alleged sections is made out. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that victim is minor and per the statements of victim and medical examination report, victim is below 16 years and, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. Other submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 528 B.N.S.S. 5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of first information report as well as other material evidence available on record, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. No case for interference by this Court is made out. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed questions 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. 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 (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. The present application under Sections 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad