LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-301

PANKAJ RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On April 15, 2019
Pankaj Rastogi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two writ petitions being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 31343 of 2018 and Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 31370 of 2018. The writ petitioners in the first writ petition are Pankaj Rastogi, Mohit Rastogi and Ketan Kumar Shah whereas the writ petitioners in the second writ petition are Smt. Tanya Rastogi and Ambuj Rastogi. The record shows that both the writ petitions have been filed being aggrieved against the lodging of the FIR dated 22.10.2018 by one Ruchir Rastogi (respondent no.4 in the first writ petition and respondent no.3 in the second writ petition). The FIR was registered as Case Crime No.0128 of 2018 under Sections 457, 380 and 506 IPC PS Pheelkhana District Kanpur Nagar. As the relief sought in both the writ petitions is absolutely identical i.e. quashing of the aforesaid FIR dated 22.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0128 of 2018 and in both the writ petitions the FIR has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, therefore with the consent of all the parties concerned, both the writ petitions were taken up for hearing together and both the writ petitions are being decided by means of the present common order while treating Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.31343 of 2018 as the leading case.

(2.) We have heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first writ petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 31343 of 2018, Shri Dileep Kumar and Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners in the second writ petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 31370 of 2018, Shri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the complainant Ruchir Rastogi in both the writ petitions and Shri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State in both the writ petitions.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the contentions as have been raised at the Bar of this Court, the factual position as it emerges can be crystallized herein as under:-