Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 30.11.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.14, Azamgarh, whereby the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants to face trial for the offence, under Sections 498-A, 494, 506 I.P.C., in Case No.404 of 2010 as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant no.1 had married with opposite party no.2 but thereafter the opposite party no.2 went away with another person and after a couple of months, when she returned a Panchayat was held on 10.5.2007, whereby a compromise was entied between them and they agreed to live separately and the marriage was also dissolved, pursuant to the compromise. It is contended that after the compromise dated 10.5.2007 applicant as well as opposite party no.2 are living separately but as soon as she come back from her second husband, she initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant, which is bad in law. 4. 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 facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.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 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. 5. The prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as the proceedings of the complaint case is refused. 6. 5. The prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as the proceedings of the complaint case is refused. 6. 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 the applicant nos. 3, 5 and 6, who are ladies, may be considered and disposed of on the same day, if possible by the Court below and for remaining applicants their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by 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. 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. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.