JUDGMENT Shashi Kant, J. Heard Sri Gyanendra Pathak, learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the material available on record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Summoning Order dated 24.05.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bahraich in Complaint Case No. 44 of 2013 - Gyanwati @ Bittu Vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra and Others, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 494 I.P.C., Police Station - Vishweshganj, District - Bahraich as well as order dated 16.07.2015, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Bahraich in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2013 - Vijay Kumar Mishra and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others. 3. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this application on merit and he confines his prayer only to the extent that applicants may be permitted to move discharge application, through their counsel and same may be heard and decided expeditiously, in accordance to law. 4. In view of above, applicant nos. 2 to 7, are permitted to move discharge application alongwith certified copy of this order, through their counsel, before the learned Court below, within thirty days from today, same will be heard and decided expeditiously, if possible within sixty days from the date of such application moved by applicant nos. 2 to 7. 5. Till thirty days from today and thereafter, till disposal of discharge application of above mentioned applicants, no coercive measures shall be taken against them in the aforesaid case. 6. In case, above mentioned applicants fail to move discharge application within thirty days from today, learned Court below shall be at liberty to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 7. So far as applicant no. 1 is concerned who is husband of opposite party no. 2, prayer for moving discharge application through counsel cannot be granted in respect to him. Therefore, prayer made to the above effect in respect to applicant no. 1 is rejected. 8. However it is provided that if the applicant no. 7. So far as applicant no. 1 is concerned who is husband of opposite party no. 2, prayer for moving discharge application through counsel cannot be granted in respect to him. Therefore, prayer made to the above effect in respect to applicant no. 1 is rejected. 8. However it is provided that if the applicant no. 1, Vijay Kumar Mishra, who is husband of opposite party no.2, surrenders before the courts below within thirty days from today, and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati & Another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290, as affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). 9. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as an implied direction of this Court to grant bail to the applicant no. 1 and the trial court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance to law. 10. Till the aforesaid period of thirty days, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicant no. 1 in the aforesaid case. 11. In case, applicant no. 1 fail to surrender before the Courts below, within the stipulated period of thirty days, no prayer for extension of time shall be entertained. 12. With above directions this application stands disposed of.