1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 20.11.2009 lodged by the Opposite Party No. 4 at Crime No. 1349/09, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow and also for direction to the opposite parties not to arrest them in pursuance of the said impugned First Information Report. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per version of the First Information Report, the Petitioner No. 2 (Raj Kumari Sharma) sold her House No. 17/304, Indira Nagar, Lucknow to the complainant (Opposite Party No. 4. Her husband, petitioner no. 1 (Kamal Kumar Sharma) did not disclose this fact that Raj Kumari Sharma had taken a lone and the house was mortgaged to the bank. Later on the complainant learnt that the house was mortgaged to the bank against loan. Learned counsel submits that, in fact, this fact was already within the knowledge of the complainant which is apparent from the agreement (Annexure No. 2). The petitioner no. 1 (Kamlesh Kumar Sharma) had already lodged a First Information Report at Crime No. 86/07, under Sections 420, 504, 506, 323 IPC, P.S. Ghazipur, District Lucknow against the complainant and others with the allegation that they had played fraud with his wife Raj Kumari Sharma. The complainant by way of counter blast has lodged the First Information Report against the petitioners. On the basis of allegations made in the First Information Report, no offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, deserve protection. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have gone through the contents of the First Information Report which disclose the commission of cognizable offence and as such we do not find any ground to quash the impugned First Information Report. 6. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have gone through the contents of the First Information Report which disclose the commission of cognizable offence and as such we do not find any ground to quash the impugned First Information Report. 6. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we finally disposed of this Writ Petition with the observation that the petitioners will not be arrested by the Investigating Officer till he collects of credible or cogent evidence against the petitioners subject to their full cooperation in the investigation which will go on. _____________