Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47757-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6174 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 03-11-2024 registered as Case Crime No. 98 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Suhval, District Ghazipur, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that offences, complained of, are punishable only up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, 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. 3. Learned counsel for the informant has raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on two grounds. Firstly, the writ petition has been filed with the concealment of material facts, as the petitioner has a criminal antecedent with eight other cases. Secondly, in an earlier writ petition filed for the quashing of the first information report dated 13-12-2024, registered as Case Crime No. 113 of 2024 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, and 506 of the IPC at P.S. Suhwal, District Ghazipur, this Court had referred the matter to the mediation center with the observation that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10,00,000/-, which was to be given to the informant. However, while the petitioner obtained an interim order, he deliberately failed to deposit the requisite amount. In this background, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 4. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences against the petitioners 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. 5. 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 petitioners 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. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 pks (Prashant Kumar, J.) (M.C. Tripathi, J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad