JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 19.3.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 95 of 2016, under Section 420 , 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Police Station - Sadar Bazar, District - Saharanpur. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 is nephew of Raju Malya - husband of Shalu Rani, daughter of the petitioner. 4. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 at the behest of his maternal uncle, Raju Malya, containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner against his son-in-law, Raju Malya and other family members, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. - Mahila Thana, District - Saharanpur. 5. It is further submitted that apart from bald allegations made in the FIR, no credible evidence is coming forth. It prima facie does not indicate petitioner's complicity in the alleged offence, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 6. From a perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference in the impugned F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused. So far as the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no credible evidence on record is concerned, the same is matter of investigation. 7. However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the FIR, the provisions of section 157 Cr.P.C. and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J., 1981, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the credible evidence is not collected by the I.O. during pendency of the investigation. With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.