Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case No. 77 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC, police station Binawar, district Budaun and also to quash the summoning order dated 13.8.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3 Budaun in the aforesaid case. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No. 1 is husband and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 respectively and the applicant NO. 4 to 7 are sister-in-law and applicant No. 8 is brother-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 and they have been falsely implicated in the present case therefore, criminal prosecution of the applicants is bad in law. So far as the applicant No. 1 (husband) is concerned following orders is being passed:- 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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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 applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 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. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicant NO. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and summoning order is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicant NO. 1 appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicant 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 judgment 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 applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of so far as applicant No. 1 is concerned. So far as the applicant Nos. 2 to8 are concerned following orders is being passed:- Issue notice to the opposite party No.2 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. The opposite party No. 2 may also file counter affidavit within the said period. As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants two week thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. List after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant No. 2 to 8 in the aforesaid case. _____________