Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110401 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1980 of 2020 Applicant :- Sunil Narang And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Govil Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Kumar Shishodia Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 impugned charge sheet 20.02.2018 filed on 27.10.2018 in Case No. 32 of 2018 (State vs. Sunil Narang & Another), in Case Crime No. 902 of 2017, under Sections 504, 506, 354 IPC, P.S. Sector-49, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. (II), District- Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. It is alleged in the first information report that on 28.09.2017 applicants entered into the house of the informant thereafter misbehaved, abused and threatened the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case as informant got rented house from the applicants and issued cheque in favour of applicant, subsequently, the same was dishonored. Only to save herself from that prosecution, informnat lodged the present first information report against the applicants. On perusal of evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer, no offence under alleged sections is made out. Instant first information report has been lodged with malicious intention in counterblast of the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of N.I. Act. There is no cogent evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that on perusal of statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., which have been filed with the counter affidavit, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. Submission of the applicants in regard to dishonour of cheque and proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act, has wrongly been raised to save themselves. Other submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be considered and examined at this stage by this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. On perusal of first information report and statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. 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 & 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 Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. However, if the applicants move discharge application before the court below, the court below shall consider the same and decide the application expeditiously, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad