HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22486 of 2025 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. Vakalatnama, filed by Sri Geetam Singh, Advocate on behalf of the first informant/respondent no.3, is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sumit Tandon, learned AGA for the State and Sri Geetam Singh, counsel for the respondent no.3. Perused the record. 3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned first information report dated 24.7.2025 in connection with Case Crime No.0323 of 2025 (State vs. Suneel Rajpoot and others), under Sections 85, 115(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dholna, District Kasganj. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the offences, complained of, are punishable only up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments. 5. We have perused the first information report, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences against the petitioners and therefore, the prayer made to quash the first information report cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shakil Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Suneel Rajpoot And 5 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) interference is warranted. 6. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. October 6, 2025 S.S. CRLP No. 22486 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Garima Prashad,J.)(Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad