Vijay Prakash Pathak, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1404 of 2012, Mahendra Singh Vs. Raju Singh and Others, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC, Police Station- Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of MM-III, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that no offence has been made out against the petitioners and the complaint was filed with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment only. It is also submitted that Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, without considering the entire material has illegally summoned the applicants to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar after considering the entire material, including the allegations in the complaint, statement of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively has come to the conclusion that a primafacie case has been made out against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC and accordingly summoned them to face trial. It is also submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as at present a prima facie case is to be seen and considered. 5. After considering the arguments advanced by the rival parties' counsel, the impugned summoning order along with all other material available on record, I find no infirmity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned dated 07.3.2011 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. At this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the averments made on behalf of the petitioners are related to the disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen and considered 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. 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. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case as aforesaid is refused. 7. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioners appear/ surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and disposed of by both the courts below as far as possible on the same day in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2005 Cri. LJ 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, (2009) 4, SCC 437 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. 8. For a period of thirty days from today no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of finally. _____________