JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that as far as applicants are concerned, they are bona fide purchaser. The plot in question was transferred by one Prem Nath who was owner of the property. No cancellation of sale deed has been filed. Subsequently on the basis of false allegation, impugned complaint has been filed with the allegation that property in question belongs to the complainant. Neither any document has been filed to show the ownership nor suit for cancellation of sale deed has been filed. Hence, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer. 4. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. If contention of the applicant is correct then complaint is not maintainable and the same being malicious, is liable to be quashed. These disputed question of fact has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage, in accordance with law on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Hence, no interference is required at this initial stage. 5. However, if objection/discharge application is moved by the applicants through counsel within 30 days before the court concerned, it is expected that the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law. Till disposal of the application on merit, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Complaint Case No. 509 of 2008, under Sections 463, 464, 467, 468 IPC, P.S. Kalpi, District Jalaun. 6. Further if discharge application is rejected and the applicants appear before the court concerned within three weeks and apply for bail in aforesaid complaint case, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off, expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in accordance with law, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(57) ALR-390 and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 , after giving opportunity to public prosecutor. 7. With aforesaid observations and directions, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed off.