Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51697-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6633 of 2025 Petitioner :- Charana Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the relief clause forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 21.03.2025, registered as Case Crime No.0112 of 2025, under Sections 316 (2), 351(2), 61(2) (b) BNS and section 66 (E) I.T.Act, 2000, P.S. Kurawali, District Mainpuri, 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. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the entire allegation is against is against the co-accused, Avinash @ Aman, the petitioners have no role in the instant offence, they have been implicated just because they are family members of Avinash @ Aman. 5. 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. 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 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. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed off. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 S.P. (Prashant Kumar,J.) (M. C. Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad