Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11617-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1418 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manish Yadav Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Present petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 17.9.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 0608 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that co-accused Suresh Yadav has already been granted protection vide order dated 08.1.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 168 of 2025. Copy of the said order has been supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The aforesaid order is quoted as under: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the F.I.R. dated 17.9.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 608 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments. 3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 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 interference is warranted. 4. 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 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 Cr.P.C. 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. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of." 5. The present petition also stands disposed of in terms of the above quoted order. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Madhurima Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad