Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.- Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioners, Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of criminal case no.2787 of 2009, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sant Kabir Nagar, as well as for quashing of the summoning order dated 23.10.2009. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the present matter is purely of a civil nature which has been dragged into criminal prosecution of the applicants at the behest of opposite party no.2. It is further contended that the civil suit being Suit No.580 of 2007 is pending between the parties before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant 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. 5. 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 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 Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 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 has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be 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. 6. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be 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. 6. The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as for quashing the summoning order dated 23.10.2009, is hereby refused. 7. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear before the Court below within a period of 30 days from today and apply for bail, then their prayer for bail shall be considered in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-290 and in the recent decision of the Supreme Court dated 23.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.. For a period of 30 days from today or till disposal of the bail application whichever is earlier, coercive action shall not be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.