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 set aside the impugned summoning order dated 16.1.2013 passed in criminal complaint case No. 3112 of 2012 (Devendra Vs. Prakash and Others), under Sections 406, 380, 323 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Badaun pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) / Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Badaun. 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 the learned Magistrate, without considering the entire material has illegally summoned the applicants to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 380, 323 IPC. It is also contended that the present complaint was filed in a counter blast. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA has submitted that the learned Magistrate 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 406, 380, 323 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 learned Magistrate 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 16.1.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate. 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 set aside the impugned summoning order in criminal 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. _____________