HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22881 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for State- respondents 1, 2 and 3. 2. Perused the record. 3. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the F.I.R. dated 14.09.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 255 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115 (2), 352, 351(2) BNSS, Police Station- Mirzamurad, District- Varanasi, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments. 4. We have perused the F.I.R., which prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioners. Therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Apex Court in 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. As such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted. 5. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. 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 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Shandilya Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Arvind Singh And 9 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands finally disposed of. October 7, 2025 YK CRLP No. 22881 of 2025 2 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad