JUDGMENT : Subhash Chandra Sharma, J. 1. List revised learned counsel for the applicants is present none appeared for the opposite party even in the revised call. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This application has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and quash the charge sheet No. 94 of 2003 dated 13.12.2003 and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5 of 2004 (State Vs. Sharda Prasad and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kaushambi and also further prayed to stay the further proceeding in the aforesaid case. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. containing false allegations for making maar-peet with the informant by the applicants. It is further submitted that this application was moved by the opposite party in counter-blast to that of N.C.R. lodged by applicants against the informant side regarding incident of maar-peet on 15.10.2003 in which the applicant side sustained injuries. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.11.2003 and the application was filed on 12.11.2003 wherein the occurrence took place on 15.10.2003. This delay in lodging of F.I.R. also creates doubt in the prosecution version. During the course of investigation no sufficient evidence was collected by the I.O. but charge sheet was filed. It is also submitted that applicant Nikash was injured and injury was caused with firearm by Umesh (the son of Prabhawati) who is informant in the present case. For making pressure on the applicants to withdraw the previous case, present case was got registered with false facts and after getting the medical report fabricated. The learned trial court did also not consider all these facts while taking cognizance of the offences on the basis of charge sheet and the material collected during the course of investigation, therefore, request to quash the entire proceedings of the case including the charge sheet as well as the order of cognizance.. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. 6. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. 6. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it appears that the incident took place on 15.10.2003 in which there was maar-peet between both the parties regarding which applicants lodged an N.C.R. under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. in which applicant Nikash sustained injury on his chest said to be caused by Umesh. There is injury reports of Umesh and his mother Prabhawati in which five injuries were found on the person of the Umesh and four injuries were found on the person of the Prabhawati and others, these injury reports were prepared on 16.10.2003 which is on the next day of the alleged incident thereafter present application was filed before the learned court concerned to direct the police to lodge the F.I.R. in pursuance to which F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge sheet was filed on the basis of which the learned court concerned took cognizance of the offences. At this stage, the veracity of the statements of witnesses those are injured cannot be said to be unreliable but it is to be tested during the course of trial. The authenticity of medical reports can also not be decided before this Court at this stage. 7. In this way, it cannot be concluded that version as narrated in the F.I.R. and found to be established during the course of investigation is false, therefore, there appears no ground to quash entire proceedings of the case including charge sheet and order of cognizance. As a result, prayer for quashing the entire proceedings of the case is hereby refused. Further, applicants may have an option to move an application for discharge before the learned trial court at an appropriate stage which shall be heard and decided in accordance with law on the basis of material on record. 8. However, as submitted by learned counsel for the applicants it is also directed that in case, applicants appear and move bail application before the learned court concerned within a period of 60 days from today, the same shall be decided by it as expeditiously as possible in the light of latest law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another LL 2022 SC 577 decided on 11.07.2022. 9. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of finally.