JUDGMENT Heard Sri Chandra Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 25.1.2016 registered at Case Crime no.0083 of 2016, under Sections 7/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, police station Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur. 3. The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) 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 F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case. 5. Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence, hence no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the FIR is hereby refused. 6. 5. Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence, hence no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the FIR is hereby refused. 6. However, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported I n 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009(3)ADJ 322(SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 7. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.