JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the orders dated 17.1.2015 passed by Court of A.C.M.M.-I, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 741 of 2013 (Pooja Singh vs. Vikas Sengar and others) and also order dated 8 March 2016 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2015. 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 matter. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.