Hon’ble Rajnish Kumar, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the First Information Report dated 19.4.2018, lodged by the opposite party No. 4 against the petitioners in Case Crime No. 0075/2018, under Sections 494,498-A,323,506,354(A),370 and 452 I.P.C., Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Pratapgarh. Further, a prayer has been made for issuing a direction to the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report dated 19.4.2018. The petitioners have further prayed for issuance of such other order or direction, which this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner No. 1 is said to be the husband of the complainant, petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law, petitioner No. 3 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is the son of aunt(mausi) of petitioner No. 2. The marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the complainant/opposite party No. 4 is said to have been solemnized as per the Hindu customs and rites.

3. It appears that there was some marital discord and bickering soon after the marriage was solemnized. As a consequence thereof, the impugned First Information Report was lodged. It also appears that prior to marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with the opposite party No. 4, the petitioner No. 1 had married with one Vibha Pandey on 23.2.2010 according to Hindu customs and rites. Later on they were unable to carry on their marital life with each other, therefore, they entered into a compromise through Talaknama with the consent of each other by giving Rs. 3 Lacs 50 Thousand to Vibha Pandey through cheque and cash and they decided to live separately. The agreement to the said effect was executed between them, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, both the parties were free to re-marry. It seems that the said agreement was executed with the consent of the parties therein. The same was executed and notorised on 5.7.2014. Consequent to the said Talaknama, an agreement was also duly signed,executed and notorised between the father of the petitioner No. 1-Muneshwar Shukla and Sri Rama Kant-father of the first wife of the petitioner No. 1,Vibha Pandey, on 5.7.2014. It was mentioned in the said agreement that the petitioner No. 1-Shubham Shukla and Vibha Pandey have got divorced from the said date on account of dispute and they are free to re-marry and as a permanent alimony Rs. 3,50,000/- was paid to Vibha Pandey. It was also mentioned in both the agreements that both the parties will not file any suit before competent Court and in case if any such suit is filed that would not be admissible.

4. It appears that in view of the aforesaid Talaknama and some mis-conception, the petitioner No. 1 remarried with the opposite party No. 4. Subsequently the dispute arose between the parties resulting into the impugned First Information Report which has been challenged before this Court in the present writ petition.

5. Since it was a matrimonial dispute, this Court found it proper to summon the parties to make an attempt to get the matter between the parties resolved through the process of mediation. Accordingly, the parties were summoned by the order dated 8.5.2018 and 16.5.2018. On 16.5.2018, the petitioner No. 1-Shubham Pandey and the opposite party No. 4-Neha appeared before this Court alongwith their counsel. With the persuasion of the Court as also by the learned counsel representing the parties, the parties agreed to settle their dispute by deliberation and with the help of some amicus. The opposite party No. 4-Neha had stated before the Court that on account of various factors, specially the atmosphere at her in-laws’ house and also because of the fact that the petitioner No. 1 before his marriage with respondent No. 4, was already married and till date there is no judicial separation or divorce from his first wife, it is becoming difficult;rather