Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53568 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23559 of 2024 Applicant :- Harjeet Alias Harish Chandra Alias Hariya And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 924 of 2024 (State Vs. Harjeet Harish Chandra Hariya & another) and Summoning Order dated. 02.05.2024 as well as Charge Sheet dated 23.04.2024 U/S 392 & 411 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kiraoli, District-Agra arising out of Case Crime No. 0028 of 2024 Under Section-406 Indian Penal Code Police Station Kiraoli, District Agra, pending in the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Court no. 3. Agra, 3. Counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are employees in the informant's office. Allegation is that applicant embezzeled the money amounting to Rs.1,54,642/- collected as loan amount and developed a false story that two unknown persons stolen the collected amount. Applicants are falsely implicated in the present case and allegation in FIR is not supported by any evidence. From record, no evidence is collected by I.O. to prosecute the applicant in present case. Applicant is enlarged on bail and there is no criminal history in his credit. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicants' counsel and submits that on perusal of contents of FIR, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Submission of applicants' counsel is based on factual dispute which cannot be examined at this stage and the testimony of the witness shall be examined by the trial court, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed. 5. The Hon'ble 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, 7 and 9 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. 9. At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet. The High Court by the impugned order has done exactly the same." 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. 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. 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 and another, 2023 Live Law (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. 8. The present 482 application of applicants, Harjeet @ Harish Chandra @ Hariya and Rahul, are hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad