- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. in case crime no. 86 of 2014, under sections 498 -A,323,307 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Mathura.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that on the basis of the allegation made therein prima faice cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interfering in the F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this F.I.R. has been lodged on account of matrimonial dispute, the same may be settled by way of mediation, it is directed that in case both the parties appear before the I.O. within 20 days from today for the purpose of meditation, the I.O. shall proceed further in this regard also and the petitioner shall not be arrested as per view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Versus State of U. P., 1994 CrLJ 1981. In case both the parties do not approach the I.O. for the purpose of meditation, or meditation fails, it shall be open to the I.O. to make his arrest. It is further directed that in case the meditation fails and the petitioner appears before the court concerned within 15 days thereafter and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of in view of the case of Smt. Amrawati and another Vs. State of U. P., 2005 CrLJ 755, which has been approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of U.P. reported in 2009(4) S.C.C. 437.;