HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23710 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 31.08.2023; cognizance/summoning order dated 22.03.2024 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.14240 of 2024 (State Vs. Mujjamil and others) Case Crime No. 92 of 2023, under Sections 323, 325, 452, 504 IPC, Police Station-Galshahid, District- Moradabad. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that it is matrimonial dispute and F.I.R. has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 who is son-in-law of applicant no. 1. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that applicants wanted to get divorce from the opposite party no. 2 and parents of wife wanted to solemnize her marriage with some other person. When the opposite party no. 2 opposed for the said second marriage, the applicants and other co- accused on 02.06.203 assaulted the son of opposite party no. 2 and broken his nose. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that no offence against the applicants are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Further submission is that on account of matrimonial dispute, daughter of applicant no. 1 lodged various F.I.R. against the informant and his family members. The dispute is pending between the parties. The Investigating Officer has not collected material evidence and instant F.I.R. has been lodged after about 7 days of the incident. The statement of injured has been collected by the I.O. The learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind summoned the applicant. He further submits that no Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mujammil And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) prosecution could proceed against the applicant, in such circumstances. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission and submitted that I.O. has collected sufficient material evidence against the applicants. The statement of injured, who is grand-son of applicant no. 1, is supporting the prosecution version. 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. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 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 (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 BNSS. NA528 No. 23710 of 2025 2 8. The present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 25, 2025 Meenu Singh NA528 No. 23710 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad