JUDGMENT R.N. MISRA, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A Sri Shashi Dhar Tripathi and Sri V.P. Tripathi for the State. 2. The applicants have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Cash No. 17251 of 2007 State v. Harendra Sing and another, under sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Hariparvat, district Agra arising out of Crime No. 879 of 2007 The only point raised before me is that the offences under sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C are non-cognizable, therefore, learned Magistrate cannot proceed as State case on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the police. Learned Counsel for the applicants has cited Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh and others v. State of U.P and others/ and single Judge judgment in the case of Pravesh and another v. State of U.P and another. In these two cases, it has been held that the U.P Amendment in exercise of power conferrecll by the Amendrr.ent Act, amending section 506 I.P.C as cognizable offence is invalid meaning thereby the offence under section 506 I.P.C. is non-cognizable, but on a plain perusal of these judgments, clearly show that there is no reference of Full Court decision of this Court in the case of Mata Sewak Ufadlzyay and another v. State of U.P and others. In the said case, it has been clearly held by the three Judges Bench of this Court that the State Government notification No. 777/VIII-9-4(2)-87 dated 31.7.1989 making section 506 I.P.C as cognizable and non-cognizable offence, is valid. The law of precedents is very clear. The Full Bench decision of this Court will prevail over the Division Bench or Single Judge judgment, particularly when Full Bench decision is not at all discussed in these judgements. 3. In view of above, the charge sheet submitted by the police for the offence, punishable under sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C cannot be said to be bad in law and the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate to proceed as State case is also in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Hence there is no reason to interfere in the proceedings of Trial Court and the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed. 4. Hence there is no reason to interfere in the proceedings of Trial Court and the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed. 4. However, it is made clear that if the applicants appear before the Court concerned within fifteen days and apply for bail, their bail applications shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, if possible on the same day in the light of observations made in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P and others.