JUDGMENT This petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report dated 10 May 2016, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0356 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur. Another relief, which has been sought is that the petitioners should not be arrested on the basis of the said First Information Report. 2. It has been stated in the writ petition that petitioner No.1 Varsha Tripathi is aged about 23 years and petitioner No.2 Sandeep Kumar Dubey is aged about 28 years. Both the petitioners married in a temple on 18 November 2013 and filed an application before the Registrar, Hindu Marriage, Gorakhpur on 28 April 2014 which has been registered as Application No. 288 of 2014. However, as the brother of petitioner No.1 Varsha Tripathi was not satisfied with the marriage, a First Information Report was lodged with false and fabricated allegations. 3. The First Information Report mentions about an earlier marriage of petitioner No.2 with Nidhi and in the First Information Report photographs and C.D. have also been referred and submitted. It has also been stated in the First Information Report that on 3 May 2016, when Varsha Tripathi was going to take tuition, Sandeep Kumar Dubey, who is a relative of the landlord, ran away with his sister which was witnessed by number of persons and when they tried to stop him, he threatened to kill them. The First Information Report also mentions that when the informant talked to the father of Sandeep Kumar Dubey, he was threatened and that his mother and younger brother were also involved. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report are absolutely false, fabricated and concocted. Sandeep Kumar Dubey had never married Nidhi at any point of time and that his mother, father and brother are not at all involved and they have been unnecessarily named in the First Information Report therefore, the contention is that the First Information Report with regard to his family members should be quashed. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Sri Anand Kumar Mishra has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate has appeared for the alleged first wife Nidhi. 6. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Sri Anand Kumar Mishra has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate has appeared for the alleged first wife Nidhi. 6. Petitioners No.1, 2 and Nidhi are present in the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. 7. Learned counsel appearing for Nidhi has produced some photographs and C.D. before the Court regarding the earlier marriage of the petitioner. The pictures are of the first marriage solemnized with Nidhi. Sandeep Kumar Dubey has stated before the Court that he is not in the pictures and some other person is getting married. We have seen the photographs and learned counsel for Sandeep Kumar Dubey has very fairly stated that the pictures are that of Sandeep Kumar Dubey. 8. We have also heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the First Information Report. 9. A perusal of the First Information Report does indicate that an offence has been made out. What the petitioners dispute is the correctness of the allegations contained in the First Information Report. These are matters of investigation and it will not be appropriate for a writ Court to interfere in the matter at this stage. This apart, even before this Court, Sandeep Kumar Dubey has not stated that correct facts. He has deliberately made a false statement that the photographs produced by learned counsel for the earlier wife do not contain his picture. 10. In such circumstances, when Sandeep Kumar Dubey has deliberately made a false statement before the Court, we are satisfied that it is a case which should be dismissed with exemplary cost, which is assessed at Rs.20,000/-. Petitioner No.2 shall deposit the said amount before the Registrar General of the Court within a period of one month from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. If petitioner no.2 fails to deposit the cost, the Registrar General of the Court shall inform the District Magistrate/Collector, Gorakhpur for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue and after recovering the said amount, it shall be transmitted to the Registrar General of this Court for depositing in the account of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Dilip Gupta,J., Alok Kumar Mukherjee,J. Varsha Tripathi And 4 Others Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 14526 of 2016 For the Petitioner : Mohammad Jamil Akhtar. For the Respondent : G.A., Anand Kumar Mishra, Sushil Kumar Singh Dismissed. For order see our order of date passed on the separate sheets. 21.6.2016