JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 335 of 2020 under Sections 323, 452, 504, 427, 394, 363, 365 IPC, Police Station ........, District ........ 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the records. 3. The FIR in the instant case was lodged by a husband against his wife and others. Petitioner no.1 is wife of the informant. According to the FIR, petitioner no.1 and informant married on 12.05.2013 but the conduct of petitioner no.1 was not good. Informant filed a suit for divorce which was pending. On 11.08.2020, when informant was not at his house, at 11:00, the petitioners entered into the house of the informant, abused, shattered the articles and also beaten the mother of the informant. The petitioner wanted to take away the child of the informant but his mother telephoned Police. Police came and the matter settled. But, again at 02:00 PM on the same day, four persons entered into the house of the informant and took the child away and also taken jewellery and cash. The incident was captured in CCTV cameras. There are other details also. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if in CCTV footages, only petitioner no.1 is seen, the other four petitioners have been falsely implicated. It is also argued that once matter was settled, thereafter, the story was developed to implicate the petitioners. 5. On behalf of the State, it is argued that in CCTV footages, petitioner no.1, petitioner no.2 and their mother is visible carrying the child from the house of the informant and there are photographs also showing the article in the house were shattered and destroyed. 6. It is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. FIR in the instant case discloses commission of offences. It is named against the petitioners and four other persons. Learned counsel for the State has also, under instruction, stated that in fact, in CCTV footages, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are clearly visible. What is the role of other petitioners, would definitely fall for consideration of Investigating Officer (IO). In this petition, the credibility and reliability of the FIR and also other details cannot be settled. Therefore, no interference, as such, is warranted and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. The petition is dismissed