Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53673 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32174 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijay Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Choudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sheetala Prasad Pandey Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 321 of 2024 (CNR No. UPSKU40008432024 (F-843/24) (State of U.P. Versus Vijay Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 0183 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 & 506 IPC, Police Station:- Mahuli, District:-Sant Kabir Nagar as well as impugned Charge Sheet dated 30.11.2023 along-with cognizance order dated 11.01.2024 issued/ passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar in the aforesaid matter which is pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. 3. It is alleged in the first information report that applicant on pretext of providing jog took an amount of Rs. 9 lacs, thereafter, a forged and fabricated joining letter was handed over the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all allegation alleged in the first information report is false & baseless and without support of any cogent evidence. Applicant has given money to the informant but false FIR has been registered has been registered against the applicant. Instant first information report has been lodged after about seven years with malicious intention only to harass the applicant. Learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind has issued summons against the applicant. Applicant earlier challenged the first information report before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19331 of 2022 and Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022 stayed arrest of the applicant till submission of police report. He further submits that applicant is a journalist and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the submission raised by applicant's counsel and submits that allegation alleged in the FIR is supported by evidence collected by the I.O. It is not a case of false implication. Learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant. He next submitted that arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant are factual aspects of the matter, which cannot be considered at this stage. 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 & 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 482 Cr.P.C. as the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 7. The present 482 application of applicant- Vijay Yadav, is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. 8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned court within two weeks from today and applies for bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922. 9. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicant before the Court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad