Dismissed

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2021CRLP/2635/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal seeking transfer of investigation to CBI was dismissed. The court held the petition was filed based on concealment of material fact, specifically that the respondents were the petitioner's family members, causing a family dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be directed to theDismissal of the Writ Petition due to concealment of material fact.

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2635 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Mohan,A.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA for State-respondent.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

¶7

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the investigation in pursuance of F.I.R. lodged on 24.12.2020 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition) purported to be under Section 345, 346, 347, 348, 419, 420, 467, 468, 384, 471, 323, 504, 506 IPC before the Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar registered by the petitioner to be transferred and investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority to decide the representation dated 1.2.2021 (Annexure No. 9 to this writ petition) in time bound manner.

¶9

The petitioner has cunningly concealed the material fact of the case that respondent nos. 5 and 6 are his son and respondent no. 7 is his wife. There appears to be some dispute between the petitioner and his wife and sons. Prima facie, it appears that even facts in this regard were not disclosed by the petitioner before Judicial Magistrate in his application under Section 156 (3) Cr P C, pursuant to which the impugned first information report no. 0510 of 2020 dated 24.12.2020, under Section 345, 346, 347, 348, 419, 420, 467, 468, 384, 471, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar was registered. The fact that respondent nos. 5 and 6 are sons as well as respondent no.7 is the wife of the petitioner has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed for concealment of material fact.

¶11

Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Rahul Dwivedi/-

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganga Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sankit Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamlesh Tandon Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sheshmani Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others