JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Karunesh Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Ved Prakash Pandey and Sri Deepesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings including impugned charge sheet dated 13.1.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 22.4.2019 in Criminal case No.3684 of 2019, Case Crime No.829 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Kotwali district Bareilly pending in the court of CJM Bareilly.

3. This Court vide order dated 5.8.2019 referred the matter before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad to decide the same. The proceeding in the Mediation Centre was initiated.

4. The Mediator has submitted its report in Annexure E Form 5 dated 7.1.2020 before the Court and submitted "Mediation completed. No agreement."

5. Learned AGA thereafter submitted that the mediation has failed and the parties have not arrived at any positive agreement, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this matter pending before this Court.

6. The contention of counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present case has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

7. 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 applicants. 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.

8. At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, the prayer for quashing the entire cognizance order, Charge Sheet and proceedings of the aforesaid case is refused.

9. However, the applicants are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of thirty days from today, the prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

10. In case the applicants fail to surrender within the stipulated period, the court below shall proceed in accordance with law.

11. With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of.

12. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

13. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.