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. 1529 of2007, (Jagarnath Vs. Lolarakh) order dated 17.9.2008, u/ss 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Aurai, district Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) as well as non bailable warrant issued by the court of ACJM, Bhadohi, Gyanpur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. 3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant involve several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to the case. False implication due to malafide intention has been pleaded. 4. The law regarding the sufficiency of the material which may justify the summoning of the accused in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. 5. 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. 6. The perusal of the complaint, the summoning order and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them. 7. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either. 8. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the matter, it is directed that in case the applicant appears before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail be considered and decided in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amarawati and others Vs. 8. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the matter, it is directed that in case the applicant appears before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail be considered and decided in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amarawati and others Vs. State of U.P. 2004(57), ALR 290 and also in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009(3) ADJ 322(SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 9. It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be entertained if the applicant does not avail of this order in the stipulated period of time. 10. With the aforesaid directions this application is finally disposed of. _____________