Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.5220 of 2013 (Shalini Vishwakarma Vs. Anil Vishwakarma), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur pending in the Court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate-VII, Ghazipur.

3. The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that the applicant no.1 is the husband of opposite party no.2 and rest of the applicants are family members of applicant no.1. The marriage between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 27.06.2012, but their marriage was not successful as a result thereof on account of acrimonious relations, opposite party no.2 filed a complaint dated 27.11.2013 against the applicants making allegation of harassment and torture against them. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and 202 Cr.P.C. of the P.W.1 Virendra and P.W.2 Chandra Dev, summoned the applicants vide order dated 19.01.2016 to face trial under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the instant application has been preferred in the year 2021 with the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings against them.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no.2 also instituted a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the applicant no.1 for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month being Criminal Case No.224 of 2015, the said application was allowed by the Family Court, Ghazipur vide judgement and order dated 11.12.2018. Against the said order applicant no.1 filed a criminal revision before this Court being Criminal Revision No.736 of 2019 in which vide order dated 22.2.2019, coordinate Bench of this Court directed the applicant no.1 to deposit 50% of arrears of maintenance as well as Rs.3,500/- per month up-to April, 2019 and shall continue to pay Rs.4,000/- per month. Thereafter opposite party no.2 also filed a case against applicant no.1 under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thereafter applicant no.1 has also filed a case for divorce under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi. The opposite party no.2 is continuously absenting herself from matrimonial house and not performing her marital relations on account of which the matrimonial life of applicant no.1 has complete been destroyed.

5. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. No offence is made out against the applicants. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned summoning order as well as entire criminal proceeding of complaint case against the applicants is liable to be quashed by this Court.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants submitted that upon perusal of complaint and statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as impugned summoning order dated 19.06.2016, the cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. The criminal proceeding against the applicants cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of Court, hence this application is liable to be dismissed.

7. After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I find that the complaint against the applicants has been filed in the year 2013 and applicant has filed the present application in 2021. There is no explanation for filing the present application after so much delay. 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 power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pretrial 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 complaint 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. Factual submissions and defence as raised in the application can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage. The applicants have an alternative statutory remedy of moving discharge application at the appropriate stage.

8. It is also well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others 2019 (6) SCC 107 [LQ/SC/2019/705] has laid down the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph No.17 is reproduced herein below:

"In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case."

10. The Apex Court on 31.01.2020 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2020 has held that 'power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law'.

11. This Court does not find that this case fall in a categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicants in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage it would not be appropriate to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.

12. The relief as sought by the applicants through the instant application is hereby refused.

13. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.