Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. 2. The applicants, by means of this appliction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.05.2010 passed by C.J.M., Court No. 2 Rampur in F.R. Case No. 9 of 2009, case crime no. 152-C of 2006, Phooljahan Vs. Mehandi Hasan and others, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 324 and 506 IPC, P. S.- Malik Khanam, District Rampur by which he has rejected the final report submitted in the matter and taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the applicant as well as order dated 09.08.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Rampur dismissing the criminal revision no. 131 of 2010, State Vs.Mehandi Hasan preferred by the applicant against the order of the learned Magistrate. He also submitted that the revisional court also competent court of law in refusing the error comitted by the learned Magistrate. 2. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicant are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 3. 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 applicant. 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 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 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 he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 4. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have 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 he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 4. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case and the chargesheet is refused. 5. However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his 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. 6. For a period of 45 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of. _____________