JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the non-bailable warrants issued vide order dated 29.11.2016, passed by Judicial Magistrate First, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on application dated 29.11.2016, filed by S.H.O., police station, Kichha, in case crime no. 201 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B, 34 IPC, registered at police station, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. A further writ has also been sought directing respondent no. 2 not to arrest and harass the petitioners in aforesaid case crime number. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent State and perused the documents brought on record. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first criminal writ petition, being Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 991 of 2016, filed by petitioner no. 1, was decided by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2016. 4. The petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer, but in the meanwhile, the I.O. was changed and the new Investigating Officer has obtained non-bailable warrants against the petitioners from the Magistrate concerned on the ground that the accused persons are not appearing before him and are not cooperating with the investigation of the case. 5. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that in three criminal cases out of five criminal cases, compromise has taken place between the parties and, therefore, three criminal cases were decided in terms of compromise entered between the parties by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2016. Two criminal cases are now left, in which the petitioners are fully cooperating with the investigation, but somehow the new Investigating Officer has managed to get non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners on the ground that they are not cooperating with the investigation. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that both the petitioners will appear before the Investigating Officer on the date fixed by the Court. Learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that there is likelihood of compromise between the parties in these two criminal cases also. 7. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that both the petitioners will appear before the Investigating Officer on the date fixed by the Court. Learned Senior Counsel lastly submitted that there is likelihood of compromise between the parties in these two criminal cases also. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that offence punishable under Section 467 IPC is not made out against the petitioners and if the commission of that offence is ignored in respect of the petitioners, other offences are covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 8. It is provided that the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that they have committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It will not be based upon the ipse dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioners shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied. 9. Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest of the petitioners. 10. Petitioners are directed to contact the new Investigating Officer of the case on 22.12.2016, and on such subsequent dates, as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. It is provided that execution of non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance till 22.12.2016. 11. It will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending for disposal, inasmuch as, the investigation is going on and ultimately, the investigation will come to its logical conclusion only under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure either by a final report or by a charge sheet. Criminal writ petition is accordingly being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today. 12. In the given facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent. Criminal writ petition is accordingly being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today. 12. In the given facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent. Still, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this Court, if he feels aggrieved with the same. [Stay application no. 12733 of 2016 also stands disposed of.] 13. Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners today itself on payment of usual charges.