HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1624 of 2024 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. 1. Heard Sri Vaibhav Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4. 2. This Court passed the following order on 6.3.2024: "Heard. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 23.02.2024 bearing Case Crime No.0075/2024, for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 406 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya District - Ayodhya. Petitioners' counsel after arguing at some length offered to pay back the entire sale consideration Rs. 23,17,000/- (Twenty Three lacs Seventeen Thousand Only) to the informant, if the informant agrees to drop all proceedings including the civil proceedings. In addition, he submitted that he has already paid Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac Only) to the informant and is ready to pay another Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac Only) towards the expenses which he may incurred for initiating the proceedings Civil or Criminal. However, we are of the opinion that he should deposit Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lacs Only) before this Court so that we may explore the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties as essentially the dispute appears to be of a civil nature. If we find that Rs.100,000/- (One lac only) was paid by the petitioners to the informant then of course we will take this into consideration while releasing the money in favour of the informant, if at all the occasion so arises. Let Dasti notice be issued for service on opposite party No.4, through opposite party no.3. Learned AGA to ensure the same. In view of the aforesaid and to explore the possibility of mediation, it is provided that the petitioners should deposit the aforesaid Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lacs Only) by 2nd of April, 2024 in this Court. Put up this case on 08.04.2024. Till then, if such deposit is made, the petitioners shall not be arrested. In the event, money, as aforesaid, is not deposited, benefit of this order shall not be available." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the land in dispute has been acquired by the government and the compensation, if any, would be paid to the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajan Singh, Ashok Kumar Mishra, Prabhakar Trivedi, Vaibhav Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rajendra Prasad Mishra Ram Kuber And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) respondent no. 4 and he will not be able to recover the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-, if deposited by him therefore, the petitioners have not deposited the aforesaid amount. He also submits that even otherwise the offences under the impugned FIR carry sentence below seven years. 4. Learned AGA does not dispute the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to the fact that the offences under the impugned FIR carry sentence below seven years, therefore, he submits that the question of arrest of the petitioners does not arise in view of the provisions of Section 35(3) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in re: Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. However, he has no instructions in regard to the current status of the investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to avail appropriate remedy, if required. 6. Dismissed accordingly with the aforesaid liberty. October 27, 2025 Fahim/- CRLP No. 1624 of 2024 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAHIM AKHTAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench