Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.;— This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint case No.365 of 2012 (Ramzan Vs. Makku @ Makbool and others), under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kounch, pending in the court of J.M. Kounch, Jalaun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA. 3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants involve several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to the case. False implication due to malafide intention has been pleaded. By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court the applicants cannot persuade the court to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. 4. The quashing of the complaint can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 make the position of law in this regard clear. 5. In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The summoning court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. 6. As requested, the applicants are permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through their counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of four months from today. 7. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants till the expiry of stipulated period of time or the date of appearance before the court concerned, whichever is earlier. 8. 7. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants till the expiry of stipulated period of time or the date of appearance before the court concerned, whichever is earlier. 8. If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. On the other hand if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material produced by the complainant does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits. 9. It is clarified that if applicants do not avail of this order within the stipulated period of time no application for extension of time shall be entertained. 10. With the above observations, this application stands disposed of. _____________