HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1176 of 2025 Court No. - 72 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. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no. 543 of 2023 dated 17.09.2023, under sections 341, 386, 504 I.P.C. filed against applicant no. 2 & 3 and the charge sheet no. 543-A dated 03.02.2024, under sections 341, 386, 504 I.P.C. filed against applicant no. 1 as well as the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 25427 of 2024 (State Vs. Arjun alias Amit alias Raja Chaukidar), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2023, P.S. Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar. 3. As per F.I.R., on 03.02.2023 when the informant-Ajay was returning after visiting a plot, at Ganeshpur road two known persons namely Narendra Kushwaha and his friend Jagdish met him and said to accompany with them in their car bearing no. UP 78 DY 1142 as they want to talk with him. The informant left his motorcycle and accompanied with them in their car. The accused persons used abusing languages and Narendra Kushwaha has put his revolver on informant's temple and snatched Rs. 7,350/- and also said that they wants rupees one lac per month from the informant as their business is ruined due to informant and also threatened him that if he will not give rupees one lac per month, they will broke his hand and legs and also to kill his family members. Thereafter, they pushed the informant outside of the car. Hence, the present F.I.R. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kunti Devi, Om Shiv, Yogendra Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arjun Alias Amit Alias Raja Chaukidar And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The F.I.R. is false and baseless and the same has been lodged just to harass the applicants. Investigating officer has not recovered the gun used as stated in the F.I.R. As per C.C.T.V. footage, applicants were in their house at the time of alleged incident. Investigating officer has also not collected the material evidences of this case. No offence under aforesaid sections is made out against the applicants. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions of the applicants and submits that it is not a case of false implication. 6. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. Perusal of the F.I.R., statements of the witnesses on record as well as material evidences collected by the Investigating Officer of this case clearly show that applicants under pressure extracted Rs. 7,350/- from the informant as extortion money and further demanded rupees one lac. Prima facie, case is made out against the applicants. No interference is warranted, at this stage. 7. 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. 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 A482 No. 1176 of 2025 2 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. 9. The present 482 application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. September 4, 2025 Vibha Singh A482 No. 1176 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad