HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 768 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding alongwith cognizance/summoning order dated 01.08.2007 and all other orders only against the applicant, who is Balvir Singh Yadav son of late Sughar Singh, resident of Village Hirapur, Police Station Vaidpur Baidpura, District Etawah, Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 555 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2000, under Sections 427, 504, 506, 395 & 397 I.P.C., Kanpur. Police Station Gwaltoli, District Kanpur. 3. Sri Pandey, counsel for the applicant submits that the instant FIR was registered through application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against 5 known persons, namely, Rameshwar Saini, Smt. Urmila Sini, Ravindra Kumar Singh, Yogendra Kumar Singh and Balvir Singh (Constable). I.O. found nothing against the named accused persons and submitted final report on 22.02.2000, thereafter, informant moved protest application. On protest application, accused persons were summoned vide order dated 01.08.2007. He further submits that summoning by learned Magistrate is illegal and arbitrary. Applicant was not present on the spot as alleged in the FIR and no offence, under the alleged sections, is made out. Prosecution story is not supported by any material evidence. Applicant, after getting knowledge, moved Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anand Mohan Pandey, Bishram Tiwari, Satya Prakash Tiwari, Upendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh Pandey, G.A. Balvir Singh Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) application for recalling NBW but trial court without considering the submission and grievance, rejected the recall application vide order dated 05.12.2024. 4. Per contra, Sri Akhilesh Pandey, informant's counsel and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that applicant is Constable and having knowledge in regard to court proceedings and he willfully avoided the court proceedings since last 18 years and did not appear before the trial court, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed. 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 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 and another, 2023 Live Law (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 A482 No. 768 of 2025 2 illegality or infirmity. 7. Considering the argument advanced by applicant's counsel and on perusal of contents of FIR, protest petition as well as summoning order and other material documents filed with present application, it is apparent that NBW and proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. had been initiated against the applicant and summon had been issued in the year 2007, more than 18 years have passed but applicant has not appeared before trial court. Applicant is avoiding and applying tactic for delaying the trial proceedings. Submission raised by counsel for the applicant, prima facie, discloses offence under the alleged sections, at this stage, the same cannot be examined, as such, No interference is warranted at this stage. 8. The present 482 application of applicant-Balvir Singh Yadav, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. 9. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within three weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law. September 16, 2025 Nitin Verma A482 No. 768 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad