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 summoning order dated 17.5.2012 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 530 of 2009 (Smt Janeshwari Vs Mahesh and others), under Sections 147, 435, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Ujhani, District Badaun, pending in the court of learned CJM, Badaun. 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. On the other hand learned AGA has contended that 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. 5. 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 applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. 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 including those which have been canvassed by them before this Court in this application. 6. In Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Limited v. Rajvir Industries Limited and others (2008) 13 SCC 678 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has made following observations explaining the parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: - "17. The parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is now well settled. The parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is now well settled. Although it is of wide amplitude, a great deal of caution is also required in its exercise. What is required is application of the well-known legal principles involved in the matter. X x x x x x x x 22. Ordinarily, a defence of an accused although appears to be plausible should not be taken into consideration for exercise of the said jurisdiction. Yet again, the High Court at that stage would not ordinarily enter into a disputed question of fact. It, however, does not mean that documents of unimpeachable character should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of court or that the complaint petition is filed for causing mere harassment to the accused. While we are not oblivious of the fact that although a large number of disputes should ordinarily be determined only by the civil courts, but criminal cases are filed only for achieving the ultimate goal, namely, to force the accused to pay the amount due to the complainant immediately. The courts on the one hand should not encourage such a practice; but, on the other, cannot also travel beyond its jurisdiction to interfere with the proceeding which is otherwise genuine. The courts cannot also lose sight of the fact that in certain matters, both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings would be maintainable.' 7. In Rallis India Limited v. Poduru Vidya Bhushan and others (2011) 13 SCC 88 , the Hon'ble Apex Court expressed its views on this point as under: - "12. At the threshold, the High Court should not have interfered with the cognizance of the complaints having been taken by the trial court. The High Court could not have discharged the respondents of the said liability at the threshold. Unless the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence, it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion as to what was the date when the earlier partnership was dissolved and since what date the respondents ceased to be the partners of the firm." 8. Unless the parties are given opportunity to lead evidence, it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion as to what was the date when the earlier partnership was dissolved and since what date the respondents ceased to be the partners of the firm." 8. Recently, the Apex Court in Sonu Gupta Vs Deepak Gupta and others ILC 2015 SC CRL-Feb7, has held that at the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is not required to conduct a roving and meticulous inquiry and in paragraph 7, it has been held as under: " At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not." 9. Accordingly the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused. The application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. However, it is provided that in case any application for discharge at appropriate stage is moved same shall be heard and disposed off in accordance with law.