KAMLESH CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the F.I.R. and also the relevant material on record. There is no need to issue notice to opposite party no. 3 at this stage, hence it is dispensed with. The quashing of the F.I.R. in question has been sought on the ground that there is no accusation as far as the petitioner is concerned. The only allegation in the F.I.R. is that one of the relatives (son of maternal uncle) of the petitioner used to visit in an around the house of the complainant who had also threatened to oust the daughter of the complainant from the house. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no accusation against the petitioner. Otherwise also the prosecution story itself is patently unbelievable. In this regard it is pointed that according to the F.I.R. on the alleged date the son of the first informant had seen a person on a motorcycle and the kidnappee girl was sitting behind. But the son of the complainant did not say anyting. The incident is said to be of 19.05.2009 whereas the report has been lodged on 23.05.2009. Moreover the girl is said to be an adult of 20 years of age. From the other side it is pointed out that the girl has not been recovered till date. The F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence hence the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the submission made hereinabove by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is provided that till credible evidence is collected, the petitioner shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 168 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Patti, District Pratapgarh subject to his cooperation in the investigation. With these observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.