Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13340 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1209 of 2025 Petitioner :- Yamuna Prasad Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and S. B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Varun Kumar and Shri Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present petitioner has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 12, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 267/2024 and order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate C.B.I (A.P.), Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case (F.R) No. 599/2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the son of petitioner, namely, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra was found missing on 02.03.1992. The missing report was given to the police but no FIR was lodged. He has further submitted that the son of petitioner was seen by the in-laws of the petitioner on 24.12.2001 in the night at 10:30 PM at one PCO near Batuwa, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Thereafter again, he was seen at Dadar- Mumbai Railway Station in the April, 2003 with a lady of contemporary age and two children. He has further submitted that a petition bearing Writ Petition (M/B) No.3622 of 2021 was preferred by the petitioner before this Court with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the authorities to provide the identification and information of the son of petitioner on the basis of father's name and date-of-birth. Thereafter, the application under Section 156(3) CrPC was lodged and order was passed for lodging of the FIR. As a result, Case Crime No.5/2022 under Section 364 IPC was lodged but without proper investigation, closure report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Feeling aggrieved, protest petition was filed which was also rejected by the Magistrate concerned, thereafter, revision was filed but the same was also rejected by the Sessions Judge in the most mechanical manner. He has further submitted that the details of the son of the petitioner was also not collected by the Investigating Officer from regional office of Unique Identification Authority of India, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary. 4. Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General has submitted that it is an admitted fact in the FIR that the son of petitioner was seen twice by his relatives; first time in Ahmedabad and second time in Dadar-Mumbai Railway Station along with a lady and two children. In such circumstances, it cannot be a case of kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. Therefore, Investigating Officer has rightly submitted the closure report and there is not illegality in the order passed by the trial court. 5. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of petitioner, FIR, as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the son of petitioner was seen twice by his relatives; first time in Ahmedabad and second time in Dadar-Mumbail Railway Station along with a lady and two children. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the Investigating Officer has rightly submitted the closure report and there is not illegality in the order passed by the trial court. 6. In view of the above, the present petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 V. Sinha Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench