JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1532 of 2013 (Smt. Sangita Vs. Dilip @ Sandeep and others), pending in the Court of ACJ(SD), Court No.2/ACJM, Kanpur Dehat, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 3. From the perusal of the 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 applicants. The submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 CrPC. 4. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of RP Kapur vs. State of Punjab [ AIR 1960 SC 866 ], State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 SCC (Cr.) 426], State of Bihar Vs. PP Sharma [1992 SCC (Cr.) 192], and, lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para 10), reported in 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. 5. Therefore, the defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or Sections 227/228, or 245 CrPC, as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. 6. The prayer for quashing of the proceedings is, therefore, refused. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and prayed for the learned counsel for the applicants, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the Case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290, as well as the judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.