JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.241 of 2020 under Sections 498-A, 377, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the records. 3. According to the FIR, the informant, who is respondent no.3 herein and petitioner no.1 were married on 26.03.2020. For one year, they were staying cordially but subsequent to it, the informant was harassed for the demand of additional dowry and a car and two lakhs rupees were demanded. For this reason, the informant was tortured mentally and physically. There are other details as well in the FIR that parties earlier settled the dispute but still it continued and also about the sexual preferences of the petitioner no.1, etc. Notice was issued to respondent no.3 the informant to explore the possibility of settlement, but, on behalf of respondent no.3, it is straightaway stated that there are no chances of settlement. In fact, respondent no.3 Smt. Randeep Kaur, as identified by Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate, has stated that she does not want to stay with petitioner no.1 because he beats her. Petitioner no.1 Satpal Singh, as identified by Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate urged that he wants to keep his wife with him because he has a small daughter out from the wedlock. Settlement did not arrive. It has been stated that in the past also, efforts were made to settle the dispute but it reoccurred again. Now, the Court proceeds to decide the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that based on general allegations, all the family members have been implicated in this FIR, therefore, at least, directions may be issued that petitioners may not be arrested in a routine and mechanical manner and such action be taken only if there is legally admissible evidence. 5. On behalf of respondent no.3, it is argued that earlier also, efforts for settlement were made but petitioner no.1 did not abide by the terms. He had subjected the informant to the sexual intercourse against the order of nature and there are specific allegations. 6. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the FIR discloses commission of offences and investigation is necessary. 7. He had subjected the informant to the sexual intercourse against the order of nature and there are specific allegations. 6. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the FIR discloses commission of offences and investigation is necessary. 7. On behalf of the petitioners, documents have been filed to reveal that efforts for settlement were made in the past by the helpline also. Reference has been made to a petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 8. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is settled law that in case, FIR discloses commission of offences, interference is not warranted. In the instant case, FIR levels allegations against all the petitioners. It discloses commission of offences. The minute scrutiny cannot be done at this stage. It may be a matter during investigation. Therefore, no interference, as such, is warranted. 9. It is a dispute arising out from matrimonial discord and allegations have been leveled against not only husband, but other family members also. In such cases, the chances of settlement always remain opens. Who knows, tomorrow the hearts may meet again. Otherwise also, arrest should never be mechanical 10. Needless to say, arrest is not a mechanical act of the Investigating Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the complicity of a person in the offence and thereafter, to weigh in his mind the need for arresting. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer, in the instant case, shall also follow the law on the subject of arrest, if any occasion to arrest arises in the instant case. 11. With the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.