HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22755 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the Charge- Sheet No. 562 of 2023 dated 18.12.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 0595 of 2023 (Case No. 211 of 2024), under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Akrabad, District- Aligarh, pending in the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Aligarh. 3. It is alleged in the first information report that applicant took Rs. 2,80,000/- from the informant on 06.06.2020 and when informant asked to return the same, then, applicant refused to return the said amount, thereafter, a panchayat was held in the village on 06.09.2020, where, applicant promised to return the amount within three weeks but applicant has not returned the amount and threatened the informant that if you demand the amount, you will have to face consequences. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations alleged in the first information report are false, baseless and not supported by any cogent evidence. Alleged incident took place at the period of Covid-19. He next submits that informant has not explained how he got the aforesaid amount. He therefore submits, no prosecution could proceed against the applicant, in such circumstances. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions raised by applicant's counsel and submits that submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narendra Shanker, Sanjay Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mukesh Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) adjudicated at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 528 B.N.S.S. 5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From the contents of first information report as well as from the statement of informant, it is apparent that on 06.09.2020, a panchayat was held, where, applicant had promised to return the amount but with mala-fide intention he had not returned the amount. Prima facie, offence under Section 406 IPC along with other Sections is made out. The statement of the informant and contents of first information report, reveals material ingredient of Section 405 IPC dishonest misappropriation of property. No interference is warranted. 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 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. 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 NA528 No. 22755 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. 8. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 24, 2025 Aditya NA528 No. 22755 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad