JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Sri. Rahul Singh Dahiya, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. dated 15.3.2021, under Sections 376-D, 307 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar, registered as Case Crime No. 0199 of 2021 and for a mandamus restraining the State-respondents from arresting the petitioners.

3. The allegations in the impugned F.I.R. lodged by respondent no. 4 are that on 31.7.2019 at about 3:00 p.m. she had gone to Family Court, Bulandshahar to withdraw cheque of Rs. 20,000/- granted to her towards maintenance. At that time, her husband Riyajuddin accompanied by Moinuddin and Asgar Ali also came there and took her and her mother and brother, who were present there, to Bhood crossing in their car on the pretext that they will settle the disputes amicably. On reaching there, they asked the mother of the complainant and her brother to get down from the car and thereafter they took respondent no. 4 to a lonely place in Transport Nagar, Bulandshahar, where all the three accused raped her and also prepared a video film on their mobile. When she raised alarm, the accused petitioners tried to strangulate her by putting her dupatta on her neck. The accused left the place threatening respondent no. 4 of dire consequences if she does not withdraw all cases. They also threatened to make the video film viral. The complainant went to the police station accompanied by her mother and brother to get a F.I.R. registered, but the police did not register the F.I.R. She had been making continuous efforts in that regard. On the other hand, the accused petitioners had been extending threats to her and compelling her for a settlement. She again gave a written complaint at the police station and on basis of which the police has now registered a F.I.R. against the petitioners.

4. The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that on exactly similar facts, respondent no. 4 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate whereupon the police was asked to submit report. The police reported that no such incident took place. Thereafter, learned Magistrate had treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and took cognizance of the offence by issuing notices to the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the summoning order passed in complaint case in revision, which is stated to be pending. It is urged that in the aforesaid background, the lodging of impugned F.I.R. with considerable delay, on same facts, amounts to abuse of the process of law. In support of the said contention learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Kapil Agarwal vs. Sanjay Sharma decided on 1.3.2021 (Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2021).

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submitted that there is no legal bar in registering the impugned F.I.R. He further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are of serious nature and this Court should not interfere in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Before we came to the facts of the instant case, it would be advantageous to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kapil Agarwal (supra) in some detail. In that case, one M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. (for short ‘VBL’) was a licensed franchisee of PepsiCo India Pvt. Ltd. In the year 2013, it appointed the firm of the complainant-Sanjay Sharma as a distributor of its products for Loni, District Ghaziabad. In the year 2014, the distributorship contract was terminated on account of non payment of dues of VBL. It was alleged that a cheque towards the same was issued by the complainant in favour of VBL. When it was presented for encashment, it was dishonored due to insufficient funds. After issuing statutory notic