ORDER By the Court.—Towards our last order dated 20.1.2014, all the parties are present in Court. 2. Ram Surat Singh, the father of prosecutrix, states that he had no idea about the episodes and, in fact, petitioner No. 1-Praveen Kumar Singh is villain of the piece, who has enticed away his younger daughter-Smt. Neelam Singh. 3. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are required in Case Crime No. 23 of 2013 registered under Sections 366, 376 and 323 IPC at Police Station Mahila Thana, district Lucknow. However, the allegations in respect of petitioner No. 2, the mother of petitioner No. 1, appeared to be only limited to the harassment of prosecutrix. Thus, as per statement of Station Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana Lucknow, Smt. Seema Shukla, petitioner No. 2 is said to be involved only in the offence under Section 323 IPC. 4. During the course of proceedings, Smt. Rajni Singh, sister of the prosecutrix and wife of petitioner No. 1, stated that the girl child born to the prosecutrix is from her husband-accused-petitioner No. 1. It is also informed that petitioner No. 2, the mother of petitioner No. 1 owns a three-storied house in Krishna Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow, which she claims to have been constructed from out of her own earnings, and in which the petitioners as well as the prosecutrix and her daughter are presently staying. The elder brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, Suneel Kumar Singh, who is a police constable in U.P. Police, also states that the entire problems have been created by accused-petitioner No. 1. It is he who enticed away the prosecutrix and out of her wed-lock with him, the girl child is born. 5. Whether the girl child of the prosecutrix is born in the wed-lock or out of the wed-lock with petitioner No. 1, the child and her mother (the prosecutrix) will be entitled to get shelter and maintenance from petitioner No. 1-Praveen Kumar Singh. However, since he is accused in the instant Case Crime under Sections 366, 376 and 323 IPC, prosecutrix Neelam Singh and her child will stay in the house of petitioner No. 2, the mother of petitioner No. 1, in one of its floors, and will be maintained by the earning from the agricultural land of petitioner No. 1 and/or any other source of income, petitioner No. 1 and his family have. The prosecutrix and child will also be entitled to get financial support from her parental ancestral property including the agricultural land in the possession of her father-Ram Surat Singh and the family. 6. Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana shall depute a lady police constable to visit the prosecutrix and her child daily in order to ensure their security and peaceful living. 7. Petitioner No. 1, who is an accused in the impugned FIR under Sections 366, 376 and 323 IPC., and is required by the police, is directed to be taken in custody forthwith by the Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Lucknow and also Incharge of Police Out Post, High Court, Lucknow. He shall be produced before the Court of concerned Magistrate for drawing appropriate proceedings. 8. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has laid down the guidelines for the exercise of power of quashment of F.I.R. under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as under: “(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or ‘complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. The facts of this case do not attract any of the guidelines inviting exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution by this Court. 10. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid directions. —————