Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A., and perused the records.

2. Present petition has been filed for direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the FIR dated 2.6.2015 in Case Crime No. 145/2015, Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Aligarh, and for the direction of mandamus commanding the respondent-State and police for not arresting the petitioners in aforesaid case, and for any other suitable writ or direction.

3. One Smt. Sadaf Basit (wife of Mohd. Arshad Quaraishi) had lodged FIR with averment that her marriage was performed on 24.6.2014 with Mohd. Arshad Quaraishi (s/o Riyazuddin, resident of New Delhi) in accordance with Muslim religious customs. In this marriage, her parents had given dowry including Honda City car. After marriage, she came to her husband’s house, where from the very beginning her husband, mother-in-law Smt. Shahnaj Begum, father-in-law Riyazuddin, husband’s sisters Smt. Aarshiya Fayaz and Smt. Sabina Rafi, her husband’s brother-in-laws Sheikh Fayaz Ahmad and Mohd. Rafi Sheikh, and husband’s cousin brother Mohd. Wasim had started passing comments for insufficiency of dowry and had started regular altercation and manhandling with her. After one and a half month of marriage, she was sent out ofm house of in-laws, with direction to bring Mercedes car. Thereafter, her husband or his family members had not come for bringing her back. After about eight months, he came to know that her mother-in-law is indisposed and was admitted in hospital, then her parents had left her to hospital. But the family members of her husband had beaten her and expelled from the house. Therefore, she had lodged report.

4. On the basis of said report of informant Smt. Sadaf Basit, FIR in Case Crime No. 145/2015, Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Aligarh was lodged against eight persons named in her report. Those eight named persons had filed present writ petition for quashing the said FIR and direction to respondents for not arresting the petitioners. The grounds mentioned in writ petition are that immediately after marriage, respondent No.3 Smt. Sadaf Basit (informant) had left the house of husband and went back to her matrimonial home. The allegations contained in FIR are incorrect and no cause of action ever arose at Aligarh, because entire allegations with regard to alleged demand of dowry and cruelty are confined and restricted to New Delhi and no allegations have been made about any alleged harassment or alleged cruelty or any offence in Aligarh. Respondent-informant left her husband’s home out of her own free will and volition. Whole allegations contained in FIR are vague and general in nature, without furnishing any specific detail or specific detail of any alleged overt act; but whole of the family members, who live separately from husband and father-in-laws of informant, have also falsely been implicated. The petitioners No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 (Aarshiya Fayaz, Shabina Rafi, Sheikh Fayaz Ahmad and Mohd. Rafi Sheikh) live in Sri Nagar (Jammu & Kashmir) and have nothing to do with affairs of informant or her husband. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in present case to subject them to extortion due to vengeance, and the FIR is outcome of malice. The FIR is devoid of territorial jurisdiction. Due to it fundamental rights of petitioners are going to be violated, because petitioners are apprehending their arrest by the police. Therefore, they have filed present writ petition.

5. Notice of this writ petition was served on respondents including the respondent No.3 (informant of the FIR), but no objection or counter-affidavit was filed by any respondent.

6. From uncontroverted affidavits filed on behalf of petitioners and available records, it is evident that informant was original resident of district Aligarh, U.P., who had married with pet