Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62198 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31462 of 2024 Applicant :- Manoj Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nitansh Kumar Roy Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard Sri Nitansh Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet dated 09.09.2022, criminal proceedings of Case No.4635 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 128 of 2022, as well as the cognizance order dated 27.02.2023, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut. 3. Allegation in the FIR is that applicant's dog bitten the informant, hence, the present FIR has been lodged. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to mala fide intention only to harass the applicant. Informant immediately informed to police station regarding the incident implicating the applicant that applicant's dog has bitten her. Applicant is not owner of the dog. The fact is that the dog bitten to the informant is a street dog and applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. Summoning by learned Magistrate is without application of judicial mind. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that applicant is the owner of the dog has bitten the informant. Bitting wounds and statement of witnesses are very much supporting the prosecution version, as such, it is not a case of false implication, hence, applicant is not entitled for relief as prayed. 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. 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. 7. The present 482 application of applicant-Manoj Chaudhary, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Nitin Verma Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad