JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No. 01/2016 (Anil Kumar Jain v. State and other) arising from order dated 2.11.2015 passed by the C.J.M. Firozabad in Misc. Case No.6/2015, Anil Kumar Jain v. Uma Shankar Jain, under Section 219 IPC, P.S. Matsaina, District Firozabad. 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions 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 239 or 227/228, or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be 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. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., declines to interfere with the impugned orders. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.