Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40466-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5143 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sarfaraj Husain @ Raj Ahmad @ Mohd Sarfaraj Ahmad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjani Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred to quash the FIR dated 01.03.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0033 of 2025, under Section 75 of B.N.S. alongwith Section 67-A of I.T. Act, Police Station Dashashvmegh, District Varanasi. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned AGA on the strength of instruction submits that during investigation section 67-A of I.T. Act has been deleted and section 79 of BNS, 2023 has been added. Moreover petitioner no. 2 has been exonerated during investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that investigation under section 75 and 79 of BNS, 2023 is going on qua to the petitioner no. 1 and offences, complained of, are punishable only 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/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 FIR, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences 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 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 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 no. 1 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. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Bhanu (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M. C. Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad