JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case no.582 of 2012, under section 494/506 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Bakewar, District Etawah and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is Bahnoi, however, complaint was lodged on the basis of false allegation. He is not concerned with any family dispute or re-marriage hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer. 5. Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. Since it requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage no interference is required. The defence version of the applicants has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage. 6. If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicant within 30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. 7. Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. 8. However, if discharge application is rejected, applicant appears before the courts below within 30 days and applies for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in view of the principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in 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 v. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 437 . 9. With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off.