JUDGMENT & ORDER : RAJEEV MISRA, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 is for quashing of an FIR in Case Crime No. 236 of 2016, Police Station-Mahila Thana dated 14th June, 2016, District- Ghaziabad under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 354, 504, 506, IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The FIR has been lodged by Smt. Suneeta wife of Sri. Pramod Kumar alleging that her marriage was performed on 1st December, 2014 in which a huge amount of dowry was spent but the in-laws were dis-satisfied and started commenting and torturing her for further dowry. It is further alleged that in the month of May, 2015 when she was pregnant then her mother-in-law, Smt. Rajwati and her elder sister-in-law, Smt. Renu (petitioner No. 3) administered some medicine, as a result whereof, she had to abort. On 15th August 2015, it is alleged that her husband and the in-laws who are the petitioners herein assaulted her and drove her out of her marital house, whereafter she has been residing at her parents place. It is further alleged that on 23rd November, 2015 at about 6:00 pm in the evening when she was alone at her father's residence, the petitioners along with Smt. Rajwati and Sri. Brahmrishi entered her maternal house forcefully and started commenting upon her and then physically assaulted her. They also destroyed her belongings and the petitioner No. 4 along with his brother Sri. Brahmrishi physically molested her and tore her clothes. On raising a hue and cry, people of the locality gathered at her place whereafter the accused went away threatening her with dire consequences and also raising their demand of a Car and other items or else they will implicate her in false criminal cases including that of kidnapping. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset has stated that Smt. Rajwati, the mother-in-law of the complainant and Brahmrishi, the brother-in-law (dewar) have already been bailed out by the court below. 4. This writ petition has not been filed by the husband. The writ petition is on behalf of the father-in-law, the husband's elder brother, his wife and the husband's younger brother. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. 4. This writ petition has not been filed by the husband. The writ petition is on behalf of the father-in-law, the husband's elder brother, his wife and the husband's younger brother. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Bablu Singh contends that this FIR was framed in order to exercise undue pressure on the entire family who have been roped in together with the allegations of a forced abortion and molestation at her maternal house, both of which are figments of imagination and without any evidence in support thereof. It is submitted that this is one of the usual cases of marital relationship having become sour where the entire family is being harassed. The prayer is therefore to quash the FIR. 6. We have already noted that two of the co-accused out of six named in the FIR have been bailed out by the court below. There are general allegations made in respect of an incident of the year 2015. It is urged that the story of forced abortion is absolutely false and was added in the FIR to ensure severe harassment of the petitioners. Similarly, the allegation of molestation, that too even at her parents place is an absolutely unthinkable situation which has been framed for the purpose of an FIR without any foundation. The demand of dowry as alleged is unsubstantiated and in the absence of any credible evidence, this being not a dispute of the criminal nature, the proceedings deserves to be quashed. 7. Having gone through the entire contents of the FIR and the background aforesaid as well as the fact that two of the co-accused have already been bailed out. It will not be appropriate for us to now quash the FIR at this stage but in view of the general nature of allegations, we find that the Investigating Officer shall not take coercive steps against the petitioners for arrest provided, the petitioners continue to co-operate with the investigation till collection of any credible evidence or submission of police report whichever is earlier. In the interregnum period, we direct that the petitioners shall apply for bail and surrender before the court and the same shall be decided by the court with all expedition, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2009) 3 ADJ 322 and Amrawati & another v. State of U.P., 2004 57 AllLR 290. Order accordingly.