HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7461 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.D. Bhatt, learned AGA for the State and perused the record 2. In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite parties No. 4 & 5 is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to make investigation in Case Crime No. 0217 of 2025, under Sections 87, 137(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Sandila, District Hardoi and arrest the accused persons." 4. This case was taken up in the morning at about 11.00 a.m. and learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the location of the daughter of the petitioner is not traceable after lodging of the FIR i.e. 14.06.2025. 5. At that point of time, Sri G.D.Bhatt, learned AGA has produced the instructions letter dated 11.08.2025 provided by one Sunil Kumar Mishra, Sub Inspector, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi, the same is taken on record, wherein in para-4 it has been indicated that the location of the prosecutrix was traced out and as per her educational documents her date of birth is 16.05.2009, whereby on the date of the incident she was 16 years & Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ram Shankar Yadav .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 25 days. She was produced for medical examination on 25.06.2025 but the father of the prosecutrix- the present petitioner denied for getting his daughter medically examined, this fact has been indicated in para-5. As per para-6 of the aforesaid instructions, the prosecutrix recorded her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., wherein she stated that she studied up to class - III. She had gone to Delhi to live with her brother Manjeet Ranjeet. She returned from Delhi. She again went to Delhi on 14.06.2025 and reached there 15.06.2025. One Vikas is her friend but she did not live with him and her family members have falsely implicated Vikas. As per para- 6 & 7 the prosecutrix was produced before the Bal Kalyan Samiti, C.W.C., Hardoi and in compliance of the judicial forum of aforesaid Committee, her custody has been handed over to her father, the petitioner of this petition. Her father has given a written undertaking that he is not willing to get his daughter medically examined and she is not pregnant. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the investigation has been concluded and final report No.62 of 2025 dated 08.07.2025 has been filed. As soon as, learned counsel for the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid instructions, he stated that he has called his client in the late evening and today morning and he has apprised him that the location of his daughter is not traceable. 7. Therefore, learned AGA has been directed to seek fresh instructions by 12.30 pm. today itself. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, learned AGA has again received fresh instructions and shown a copy thereof to the Court, the same is also taken on record. As per aforesaid instructions, the present petitioner has been informed by the Investigating Officer that the final report is being filed in the present case. One Supurdaginama dated 07.07.2025 has been shown which indicates that the custody of the prosecutrix has been received by the present petitioner on 07.07.2025 itself. Sri Bhatt has also shown the order dated 24.06.2025 of the Committee in the name of Nyayapeeth Bal Kalyan Samiti, Hardoi wherein the direction has been issued to handover the custody of the prosecutrix to her father. Even after knowing the aforesaid instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner has again reiterated that the location of his daughter is still not traceable. On that learned AGA has stated that this is an admitted case that after lodging the FIR on 14.06.2025, the prosecutrix was traced out, she was produced before CRLP No. 7461 of 2025 2 the Bal Kalyan Samiti, Hardoi and the Committee in the name of Nyayapeeth Bal Kalyan Samiti, Hardoi passed an order dated 24.06.2025 directing to handover the custody of the prosecutrix to her father and pursuant to that order the custody of the prosecutrix has been handed over to the present petitioner on 07.07.2025. This fact has not been disclosed in the present petition, rather petitioner has stated that the location of his daughter is still missing. 8. If, pursuant to the FIR dated 14.06.2025, the custody of the daughter of the petitioner has been handed over to him and if she is again missing, the petitioner could have lodged another FIR, but no second FIR to that effect has been lodged by him. In the earlier FIR, final report has already been filed. 9. Therefore, keeping in a view the aforesaid fact and circumstances and the instructions letter, it is clear that the present petitioner has concealed the relevant fact before the Court, so, the writ petition is dismissed being misconceived. 10. We were proposing to impose some cost upon the petitioner, but on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is a poor person therefore the cost may not be imposed against him. Considering the aforesaid request of Sri Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, we restrained ourselves to impose the cost upon the petitioner but the conduct of the petitioner concealing the relevant fact before the Court, is deprecated. August 29, 2025 Reena/- CRLP No. 7461 of 2025 3 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench