Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding of criminal proceeding as well as order dated 5.1.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case No.1487 of 2006 (State Versus Smt. Saraswati and others) arising out of Case Crime No.141 of 2004 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and 3 (i) (xii) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions. 4. From the perusal of 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 submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur versus State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr) 426, State of Bihar versus P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Cr) 192, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works LTD. versus Mohd. Saraful Haqe and another (Para 10), 2005 SCC (Cr.)283. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge at appropriate stage. 5. The prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused. 6. versus Mohd. Saraful Haqe and another (Para 10), 2005 SCC (Cr.)283. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge at appropriate stage. 5. The prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused. 6. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear or surrender before the courts below within a period of 3 weeks from today and apply for bail, then their prayer for bail be considered in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Versus State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR-290 (affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P.) and the case of Sukhwant Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2009 Vol.VII, SCC 559, after hearing the Public Prosecutor taking into account that applicant no.1 is an old lady while applicant no.2 is alleged married Nanad of the victim and that the other co-accused persons have been acquitted. For a period of 3 weeks 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, it will be open to the court concerned to take recourses to all the process which is permissible under the law for procuring and ensuring the presence of the accused. 7. Thereafter in case the applicants move an application before the court concerned under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for their exemption from personal appearance, the trial court may dispense with their personal attendance and permit them to appear through counsel subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the trial court under the given facts and circumstances of the case. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of finally.