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. 299 of 2013 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, at P.S. Civil Lines, district Meerut. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the property in question is the subject matter of a pending civil litigation, in which already an injunction order has been granted by the court in favour of the petitioners. It is also urged that a pure civil litigation matter has been given the colour of criminal case. It has also been emphasized that petitioner nos. 2,3 and 4 are ladies. 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. 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 as laid down in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. (2005, Crl.L.J.-755) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others( 2009(4) SCC-437). 7. The petition is disposed of with the above observations. _____________