SYED RAFAT ALAM,KRISHNA MURARI,J - (1.) IN the instant petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 23.5.2007 registered as case Crime No. 403 of 2007, under sections 498-A, 494 and 120-B, IPC, Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addi­tional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents. It is contended that petitioner No. 1 was married with the informant in June, 1997 as per Hindu rituals. However, since marriage failed both of them agreed for separation by mutual settlement on 5.8.2005. It is submitted that thereafter pe­titioner No. 1 applied for grant of decree of separation before the Civil Court which was decreed by an ex-parte decree on 30th September, 2007. It is further submitted that the impugned FIR has malafidely been lodged. However, on the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate pointed out that the investigation is in pro­gress and the Investigating Officer has al­ready submitted charge sheet against six co-accused persons. He further states that the investigation against petitioner No. 1 cannot be completed since he never made himself available for the purpose of inves­tigation.
(3.) BE that as it may, we are of the view that since the allegation in the im­pugned FIR prima facie discloses commis­sion of cognizable offence, there can be no reason to quash the same. However, look­ing to the nature of the allegations and in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogindar Kumar v. State of U.P. and others 1994 (31) ACC 431 (SC) and also in the light of the observations made in the case of Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 398 = 2004 (23) AIC 1 (Alld.-F.B.) we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending further in this Court and it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition finally at this stage with the following di­rections: - 1. The investigation,- if not already completed, may be completed within three months of the date on which a certified of this order is presented before the Investigating Officer or any police officer of the district to whom the Investigating Officer is directly subordinate; 2. The petitioners will not be arrested during the pendency and for the purpose of investigation, provided a certified copy of this order is pre­sented before the police officer, as directed above within one month from today. 3. If certified copy is not presented within the time aforesaid, the stay of arrest will not operate. If on the conclusion of the investigation a charge sheet is submitted instead of final report, it will be open to the Judicial Magistrate, if he decides to take cognizance, to summon the accused by summons or warrants in accordance with section 204, Cr. P.C. after copies have been pre­pared for compliance with sections 207/208, Cr. P.C. 4. If the charge sheet is decided to be submitted to the Court of Magis­trate, then in Column No. 3 of the prescribed form of charge sheet it will be mentioned that the accused have not been arrested on account of stay order granted by this Court. ;