Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26942-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 706 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pradeep And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjit Srivastava,Usha Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Madhvendra Mishra Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State, Shri Madhvendra Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. Learned AGA states on instructions that as the matter pertains to the SC/ST Act, notice is already served upon the informant respondent No.3 and that investigation is in progress. 3. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 03.12.2024, registered as Case Crime No.141 of 2024 U/S 354(Kha), 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and U/S 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) Police Station Merapur, District Farrukhabad, 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 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments. 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 Nagarik 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. (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 27.2.2025 NLY Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad