Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51788-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6645 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prem Prakash Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 8.8.2024 registered as Case Crime No.281 of 2024 under Sections 420, 406 IPC, P.S. Pawai, Distt. Azamgarh, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand (2023) 7 SCC 69, as well as the recent directives in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3433 of 2023, passed on 31.07.2023, clearly stipulate the procedural safeguards to be followed before arresting an accused. These directions emphasize that arrest should not be made automatically, and police officers must ensure compliance with Section 41 CrPC before any arrest is made. Specifically, the circular issued by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh (DGP Circular No. 31/2023 dated 17.08.2023) mandates that these guidelines be strictly followed by police officers, ensuring that arrests are made only after adequate justification and review. Despite these clear legal requirements, the investigating officer in this case has failed to follow due process and is threatening the petitioner with arrest, in violation of these principles. 3. 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. 4. 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 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 (Supra) 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. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad