JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. 2. Under challenge in the instant writ petition is the FIR relating to Crime No.143/2010 under Sections 419,420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Manikpur, District Pratapgarh. 3. We have gone through the contents of FIR. 4. As it comes out that two shops which belong to the Institution of which the petitioner is principal, were let out by him ; one to his daughter-in-law and the other to Shri Sharik Husnain on rent for a period of twenty five years and the amount which was taken from them has been usurped. Although the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a dispute with respect to Committee of Management of the Institution of which even the parties are fighting out the same in this Court and this FIR is the outcome of the vengeance by the other parties. Further in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the amount which was taken from the tenants of the shops was given to the Committee of Management by the petitioner and in no way he has been benefited from the said amount. 5. As to whether the petitioner got deposited the said amount with the Committee of Management of the Institution or not? As to whether intention of the petitioner in giving out the shops which belong to the Committee of Management of the Institution was authorised by the committee of management or not is all matter of investigation and the same cannot be looked into at this juncture. 6. Great stress has been laid by Shri Raghvendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the committee of management is not competent to authorise the petitioner being principal for entering into contract with an outsider. 7. All these disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but definitely it can also not be ignored that the dispute is going on between two Committees ; one belonging to the complainant and the other to the petitioner. 8. 7. All these disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but definitely it can also not be ignored that the dispute is going on between two Committees ; one belonging to the complainant and the other to the petitioner. 8. In any case, since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such the same cannot be quashed but in the aforesaid circumstances, we hereby dispose of this petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case crime number unless and until some cogent and reliable evidence comes forward against the petitioner in the shape of police report. However, the investigation shall go on and the petitioner shall cooperate with the same.