Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri P.C. Srivastava who has put in appearance for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. The present 482 Petition has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 734 of 2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Badagaon, District Saharanpur pending before Civil Judge ( Jr. Div.), Saharanpur. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that daughter of applicant no. 1 had married one Mohsim who has registered an FIR vide Case Crime No. 134 of 2004, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 11 to the accompanying affidavit. It is further argued that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has also been filed for maintenance and as a counterblast, one Mohd. Umar, the first cousin of Mohsim initiated proceedings vide crime no. 129 of 2009 against the applicants under Section 307, 506 IPC. It is contended that the matter was investigated and Final Report was filed alongwith a report under Section 182 Cr.P.C. to initiate against Mohd. Umar. Again an FIR under Section 307 IPC was lodged against the applicants no. 1, 2 and 3 which was stayed. It is further argued that the applicants had forged the certificate of the first informant for which FIR was lodged by the respondent no. 2 and the present criminal proceedings has been initiated. It is further contended that for the forged document, case under section 340 Cr.P.C. should have been initiated against the applicants and initiation of present criminal proceedings is bad in law. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facieR.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facieR.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got right of discharge under Section 239 or 245(2) or 227/228, Cr.P.C. as the case may through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of The prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of applicant no. 4 who is a lady be considered on the same day if possible and bail application of the rest applicants shall be considered in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., after hearing the Public Prosecutor. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.