Rakesh Tiwari, Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.;— The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. and staying the arrest of the petitioners registered as Case Crime No. 166 of 2013 under Sections 308, 504,506 and 324 IPC, P.S. Bilari District Moradabad. 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 learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners no.2 and 3 were not named in the FIR but after a lapse of substantial period of time, the first informant and the injured nominated them. According to the contention of the counsel, this inordinately belated disclosure of the complicity of petitioners no.2 and 3 goes to the root of the matter and speaks volumes about false nomination in the case. Learned AGA in rebuttal contends that the contention relates to the merits and involves disputed question of facts which may not be gone into by this court while sitting to exercise the writ jurisdiction. 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 interference 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 interference in the investigation. 6. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, if the petitioners No.2 and 3 surrender within three weeks from today and apply for bail, the bail application shall be disposed of in accordance with law as laid down in the case of Amrawati and another versus State of U.P., 2005 Crl.L.J. 755 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. And others 2009 (4) SCC. 437 . 7. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, his petition is dismissed. 8. The petition regarding petitioners no. 2 and 3 is disposed of with the above observations. _____________