JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the Case Crime No.112 of 2019, under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard and perused the records. 3. According to the F.I.R. on 17.01.2019 at about 07:30 p.m. petitioners after abusing the first informant, respondent no.4 herein and his brother attacked them with lathi, dandas and knife. Some persons intervened and saved them but while leaving the petitioners threatened them to life. In fact, in this matter an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code') was presented, which was registered as an F.I.R. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that with regard to the incident of 17.01.2019, on the same day, an F.I.R. was lodged by petitioner no.2 against respondent no.4 and others, in which the investigation is already under progress and as a counter blast the instant F.I.R. has been filed. 5. In the F.I.R. filed by petitioner no.2 and respondent no.4, date of incident and time are almost one and the same. It appears that with regard to an incident petitioner no.2 filed an F.I.R. and thereafter by way of filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code, the instant F.I.R. was lodged. Be it as it may. 6. Perusal of the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence. Merely, because an F.I.R. is subsequent in the point of time, it does not make a ground to brush it aside terming it as a counter blast. The truthfulness of the F.I.R. is a matter for investigation or at trial, as the case may be. Therefore, there is no ground to make any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. It is argued that petitioners apprehend arrest in mechanical manner; therefore, directions may be issued that the petitioners may not be arrested without following the guidelines as laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014)8 SCC 27. 8. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), while interpreting and making reference to the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertaining to arrest and production of the accused before the Magistrate, the Hon'ble Court observed as under:- “11. 8. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), while interpreting and making reference to the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertaining to arrest and production of the accused before the Magistrate, the Hon'ble Court observed as under:- “11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically……." 9. Thereafter, from paragraph no.11.2 to 11.8, Hon'ble Court, in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) issued directions to the Police Officers authorized to make arrest as well as to the Magistrate authorized to order of detention of the accused. 10. Needless to say, Investigating Officer shall abide by the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) before effecting arrest of the petitioners. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District Udham Singh Nagar shall ensure it. 11. Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.