Rakesh Tiwari, Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.;— The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. and staying the arrest registered as Case Crime No. 107 of 2013 under Sections 498-A,304-B IPC and under section 3/4,D.P. Act, at P.S. Bhadohi, district Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. 3. It has been contended by the petitioners' counsel that petitioner no. 1 and 2 are father-in-law and brother-in-law respectively while petitioner no. 3 is sister-in-law(Devrani) of the deceased. He has also pressed before us the contention that information regarding death of the deceased was given by the side of in laws to the Police station and there was no suppression of facts done by them. He has drawn our attention to annexure no. 4 to the writ petition whichis a report of concerned police station regarding the information furnished by the father-in-law to the police station. The contents of annexure no. 4 show that it wasw informed by the father-in-law that she died while attempts were being made to provide her medical succour and she died on her way to the hospital. 4. The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha vs. State of U.P. & others [2006 (56) ACC 433] reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal vs. State of U.P. & others [2000 Cr.L.J. 569] after considering the various decisions of the Apex Court including the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and others [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ] that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case. Some other circumstances have also been illustrated in this regard. 5. As the petitioners could not make out any case which could fall under any of the categories recognized and discussed in the above mentioned cases which may justify the quashing of FIR or staying the arrest of accused, we do not feel inclined to quash the FIR or interfere in the investigation. 6. 5. As the petitioners could not make out any case which could fall under any of the categories recognized and discussed in the above mentioned cases which may justify the quashing of FIR or staying the arrest of accused, we do not feel inclined to quash the FIR or interfere in the investigation. 6. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, if the petitioners surrender within three weeks from today and apply for bail, the bail application shall be disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously. 7. The petition is disposed of with the above observations. _____________