JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan, 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 Case No. 78/IX of 2015, (State Vs. Kewal Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 66 of 2013, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mau, Chitrakoot. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. 4. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen 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. 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court including those which has been canvassed by him before this Court in this application. 5. The submissions made by learned A.G.A. have force. Accordingly the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused. Application has no force and is accordingly dismissed.