Supreme Court set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court to the extent that without quashing the FIR in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), it had directed that the accused shall not be arrested till the final report is submitted.

A Bench observed that the Apex Court had disapproved of the practices of passing orders of "no arrest" or "no coercive action" when the quashing petition itself was dismissed.

"In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., this Court has dis- approved such practice and such orders passed by the High Courts of "no arrest" or "no coercive action" till the final report is filed, despite the High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra And Ors., the Supreme Court had cautioned the High Courts not to pass such orders, stating -

"We caution the High Courts again against passing such orders of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be taken" till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, while not entertaining quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The accused had approached the Allahabad High Court in a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR dated 19.11.2019 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B Indian Penal Code at PS Noida Sector-49, Gautambudh Nagar. It was submitted that the two maternal uncles of the accused were killed and they were the eyewitnesses to these murders. As the accused and their family members apprehended threat to their lives from the alleged murders, a gunner was provided to them by the U.P. Government pursuant to the order of the High Court. The gunner was withdrawn on 01.09.2008 under pressure of the alleged murderers. It was asserted that the FIR was lodged on the complaint that the security was obtained by the accused from the High Court by forging and fabricating documents and from the FIR, it was argued, no offence can be made out against the accused. Per contra, the A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that the FIR discloses cognizable offence. The High Court had directed as under -

"...it is directed that both the petitioners namely Amit Yadav and Arun Yadav shall not be arrested in the above-mentioned case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., if any, before the competent court but shall co-operate with the investigation of the case."