HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24746 of 2025 Court No. - 74 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 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet dated 03.11.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 17.02.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.288 of 2025 (State versus Harishankar @ Deepak Bajpai and others) arising out of Case Crime No.430 of 2024, under sections 74, 115(2), 351(2), 117(2) & 352 B.N.S. & Section 3(1)r, 3(1)s & 3(2)va of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the applicant no.1 and under section 351(2) & 352 B.N.S. & Sections 3(1)r & 3(1)s of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the applicant nos. 2 & 3, P.S.Cantt., District Bareilly, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bareilly. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that applicants entered in the house of the informant and physically molested opposite party no.2. When her husband and brother-in-law arrived, they physically removed the accused from the premises. On the next day, applicants assaulted the brother-in- law of the informant and used abusive language. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegation alleged in the FIR is not supported by any evidence. Offence under section 3(1)r, 3(1)s & 3(2)va of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 prima-facie is not made out against the applicants. Cognizance and summoning by learned magistrate is without application of judicial mind. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pramod Kumar Singh Hari Shankar @ Deepak Bajpai And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the argument raised by applicants' counsel and submits that submission raised by counsel for the applicants are disputed question of fact, which cannot be considered at this stage. On perusal of FIR and other material evidence, prima-facie offence is made out against the applicants. Injured has received fracture. Contents of the FIR and statement of the witnesses are supported the prosecution case. 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. Considering the argument raised by applicants' counsel and perused the record, it is evident that prima facie offence is made out. The Apex Court in its judgment passed in the case of Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642, para 6 and 7 are quoted herein below:- "6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial. 7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C." 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 NA528 No. 24746 of 2025 2 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. 8. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned Court below within three weeks from today and in case apply for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with law. 10. For the period of three weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against them. October 7, 2025 SKD NA528 No. 24746 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad