Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1574 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rakesh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla,Kunwar Bhadur Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 06.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, under Sections 333, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. 2023 at Police Station Malawan, District Etah. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations and no offences are made out against the petitioners as alleged. Even though all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years, therefore the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C./35(2) B.N.S.S. 2023. He further placed reliance on the judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of UP and 3 others) wherein the Division Bench had laid down detailed guidelines which is in consonance with judgement of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. 4. Per contra, learned AGA resisted the aforesaid relief and states that statutory requirement under Section 41-A Cr.P.C./35(2) B.N.S.S. had been complied and the notice had been issued to the petitioners on 1.1.2025. During investigation, complicity of the petitioners had been found and accordingly chargesheet was prepared on 1.1.2025, which is not under challenge. 5. We have proceeded to examine the record and perused the instructions so placed by learned AGA. We have also taken note that the alleged notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C./35(2) B.N.S.S. had been issued on 1.1.2025. We are surprised that on the same day, the alleged chargesheet had also been prepared. Prima facie we are of the opinion that alleged notice is an eyewash. We further observe that in case the notice was issued on 1.1.2025 then by no stretch of imagination, it can be accepted that the chargesheet can also be prepared on the same day i.e. 1.1.2025. 6. Let the Investigating Officer concerned file his response. 7. Accordingly, learned AGA is accorded two weeks time to file response. Petitioners shall have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List immediately thereafter. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as briefly discussed above, until further orders, respondents are restrained to take any coercive action against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned First Information Report. Meanwhile, the petitioners are also at liberty to challenge the chargesheet as per law. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad