SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 901 of 2026 Hon ’ble Rak esh Th apliyal, J. 1. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.0086/2026 dated 9-5-2026, U/s 406, 420, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, lodged by the respondent no.4 at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun against the petitioner (Annexure No.1, Page Nos.14 to 19 to this writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with impugned FIR No. 0086/2026 dated 9-5-2026, U/s 406, 420, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, lodged by the respondent no.4 at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun against the petitioner (Annexure No.1, Page Nos.14 to 19 to this writ petition). III. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction of any nature in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost of writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence in which the petitioner has been implicated are punishable upto seven years, however, there is still an apprehension of arrest since the petitioner has not received any notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS 2023. He submits that the concerned I.O. while conducting the investigation has to follow the guidelines as formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 while conducting the investigation. 5. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned AGA for the State have not disputed that the offences, as alleged, are punishable upto seven years, therefore, the I.O. is under legal obligation to follow the guidelines as formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). 6. In view of the submissions, as advanced above, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the concerned I.O. to follow the guidelines as formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) while conducting the investigation and issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS as and when it requires. 7. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Rak esh Th apliy al, J.) 20.05.2026 Shiv/ pant