The main legal point established is that at the stage of quashing a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only a prima facie case is to be seen, and disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon.

Om Prakash-VII,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 11.4.2012 in case crime no. 282 of 2011 under Sections 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Sidhari District Azamgarh pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR has been lodged on false grounds while the applicants had not committed any offence. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the applicants. Essential ingredients to constitute offence are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of the contention.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer.

5. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view of the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the applicants are not made out. 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 a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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 prayer made in the application is refused.

6. However, it is observed that in case the applicants surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 30 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

7. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the applicants for surrender before the court concerned.

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.