Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1371 of 2013 under Sections 498A, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Ghazipur as well as to quash the summoning order dated 29.07.2013 issued in aforesaid case. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 is the husband of the opposite party no.2 applicant nos.2 and 3 is the father and mother-in-law, applicant no.4 is unmarried Nanadof the opposite party no.2 who have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that the opposite party no.2 is not living at her matrimonial house since 2011 and the alleged incident has been shown to be taken place in the year 2013 which itself shows that the complaint is absolutely false in which the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741 Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in the matter of in support of his contention. So far as the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 namely Nadeem-husband and Ali Hasan father-in-laws of the opposite party no.2 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 applicants. 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. 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 or 245 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. The prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as summoning order is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the said applicants 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 applicants. However, in case, the applicants do 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 off so far as applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned. So far as the applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned the following orders is being passed:- Issue notice to the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 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. 3 and 4 in the aforesaid case. _____________