Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5238-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 367 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gilee Gelvet Hons Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Solanki Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Yadav holding brief of Sri Ram Chandra Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents and Sri Virendra Kumar Gautam holding brief of Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4. 2. Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 29.11.2024 being Case Crime No. 370 of 2024 under Section 303(2) B.N.S., P.S. Bakevar, District, Etawah and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that arising out of same Case Crime No. 370 of 2024 this Court has already granted indulgence to Jitendra Pratap Singh @ Peel by order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23565 of 2024 (Jitendra Pratap Singh @ Peel vs. State of U.P. and others) and the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. The aforesaid order dated 20.12.2024 is quoted as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report dated 29.11.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0370 of 2024, under Section 303(2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Bakevar, District - Etawah , but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief to grant of protection under section 35 B.N.S.S., 2023 3. We have perused the the First Information Report, which prima facie discloses commissioning of cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315. 4. We are of the view that no interference is warranted. 5. However, considering the fact the offence mentioned in the present case is punishable with a term up to 7 years, the authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. 6. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of. " 4. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the aforesaid position. 5. In such view of the matter, present petition also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order dated 20.12.2024. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Lalit Shukla Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad