HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26551 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet No.19 of 2021 dated 13.02.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated 22.04.2025 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.4667 of 2025 (State Vs. Tushar Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.135 of 2020, under Sections 323, 332, 353, 392, 504, 506, 411, 34 IPC, Police Station Anpara, District Sonbhadra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that the named accused persons have assaulted the informant, who is Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Department on account of disconnection of electricity connection. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. The allegation alleged in the F.I.R. is false, baseless and not supported by any evidence. The I.O. without collecting material evidence, in very hasty manner, submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections and the learned Magistrate without applying judicial mind took cognizance. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Kumar Shukla, Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jay Prakash And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. The statement and medical examination report of the informant and injured, are supporting the prosecution version. On perusal of F.I.R. and other material evidence collected by the I.O., prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. 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 482 Cr.P.C. application 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. 7. Considering the argument raised by applicant's 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." NA528 No. 26551 of 2025 2 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 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 B.N.S.S. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 9. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 6, 2025 Mini NA528 No. 26551 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad