JUDGMENT : Chandra Dhari Singh, J. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 17.09.2017, cognizance order dated 14.12.2017 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 15550/9 of 2017 (State v. Naushad and another), arising out of case crime No. 0675 of 2016, under section 302, IPC, P.S. Kandhla, District Muzaffar Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar. 2. The opposite party No. 2 Isak has lodged an FIR against unknown person. As per prosecution case on 16.12.2016 the nephew of the complainant namely Shabbir was going by foot from his village Soop to Kaniyan, on the way some unknown person has murdered him. The information of the said incident was given to the complainant by his relatives and thereafter the case crime No. 675 of 2016, under section 302, IPC was registered at the police station concerned. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 17.12.2016. The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhage shock as a result of ante-mortem firearm injury. After investigation charge sheet has been filed. The Magistrate has taken cognizance on the charge sheet on 14.12.2017. The name of the applicants came into light in the statement of Ravindra Singh and against the applicants charge sheet has been submitted on 17.09.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the applicants, therefore, there is no chance of their conviction in the present case. The whole proceeding against the applicants is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. 4. All the contentions raised in this application by the applicants relate to disputed questions of fact. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. 5. Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject in its judgment in the case of Prabathbai Aahir alias Prabatbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 : ( AIR 2017 SC 4843 ). 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject in its judgment in the case of Prabathbai Aahir alias Prabatbhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 : ( AIR 2017 SC 4843 ). 6. The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1960) AIR SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) AIR SC 604 : 1992 SCC(Cri.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 : (AIR 1976 SC 1974). The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked. 7. Illumined by the case law referred to hereinabove, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case. 8. The submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appears to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 9. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.