JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, Shamsher Bahadur Singh, JJ. 1. Heard Shri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State. 2. By means of present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs; I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 6.9.2015 lodged by respondent no.4 in case crime no.260/2015, u/s 364A, 395, 412, 342 and 120B IPC P.s. Kotwali, District Allahabad and the order dated 21.12.2015. II. To issue any other writ, order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case. III. To award cost of the petition. 3. Necessary facts leading to present petition are that one Rahul Mahendra S/o late Sri Omkarnath Mahendra, R/o 10A, Aokland Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Allahabad lodged First Information Report with averments that his younger brother Pankaj Mahendra after closing his business at Pratishthan M/s Bhagatram Jai Narain, 45, Jawahar Square, Police Station Kotwali, Allahabad generally used to return back at above residence in between 7.30 to 7.35 P.M. On 5.9.2015, when he did not reach at home and his Cell Phone No.9415289628 was found switched off, then a suspicion arose about his missing in mysterious circumstances. Next day, i.e., on 6.09.2015 on information of the informant, First Information Report No.0193 was registered at Case Crime No.260 of 2015, under Section 364A, 120B IPC at Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad against unknown persons for offences punishable under Section 364A, 120B IPC. As his Car No.UP 70VD-1000 was found near Lord Hanuman Temple at Sangam, Allahabad and it was apprehended that he has been kidnapped for ransom, therefore, a police team was constituted and kidnapped Pankaj Mahendra was recovered from the custody of Vikal Srivastava alias Golu, Mahendra Yadav, Sacchinand Yadav and Chandra Mohan Yadav alias Bablu. They have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable uunder Sections 364A, 120B, 342, 395, 412 IPC and Bholu alias Bholu Yadav, Arun Singh Chauhan, Kartike Pandey alias Guddu Pandey and Bablu Srivastava alias Om Prakash were suspected of hatching conspiracy and against above accused persons the investigation is still going on, as per statement of Sri Vikas Sahai, AGA for State. The Investigating Officer has obtained 'B' warrant against the petitioner on 21.12.2015 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. 4. The Investigating Officer has obtained 'B' warrant against the petitioner on 21.12.2015 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. 4. The petitioner challenged the First Information Report and order dated 21.12.2015 on the ground that FIR against him is a nefarious design for some ulterior motive and the name of the petitioner has surfaced in crime in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C of co-accused Vikal Srivastava. The statement of co-accused has no relevance in view of the provision under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Act, 1872') and kidnapped Pankaj Mahendra has not named the petitioner in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, a rejoinder affidavit was filed on 9.5.2016, and there it has been averted that in view of provision of Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (in short 'Act, 1962'), the petitioner could not be tried for aforesaid offence as his extradition decree does not bear the aforesaid crime number. 6. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has been further averted that Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Daya Singh Lahoriya Vs. Union of India and others, 2001(4) SCC 516 and Abu Salem Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (11) SCC 214 and by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Swiss Timing Limited Vs. CBI decided on March, 2012 in Criminal M.C. No.18 of 2012, has interpreted the provision of Section 21 of the Act, 1962 and observed that a fugitive cannot be tried for any other offence, which has not been mentioned in extradition decree. Therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed. 7. Above ground also has been made as part of petition to challenge the first information report. 8. The petitioner prays for quashing of FIR as well as order dated 21.12.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad issuing 'B' Warrant on request of Investigating Officer for judicial custody of the petitioner in crime no.260 of 2015. The order dated 21.12.2015 has attained finality as petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision No.7 of 2010 before the Session Judge, Allahabad which has been dismissed on 21.01.2016. Further, an application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C No.1866 of 2016, Bablu Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another was filed before this Court and the same was dismissed on 25.1.2016 and order dated 21.12.2015 was upheld. Further, an application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C No.1866 of 2016, Bablu Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another was filed before this Court and the same was dismissed on 25.1.2016 and order dated 21.12.2015 was upheld. Therefore, as the order dated 25.1.2016 has not been challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court, the relief of quashing the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad cannot be granted. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that the petitioner was found and arrested in Singapore in August, 1995 and under the Extradition Arrangement between the Republic of India and the Singapore, the petitioner was extradited by State of Singapore and was handed over to Indian Authorities. The warrant of surrender for the fugitive (the petitioner) is as under:- "WARRANT FOR SURRENDER OF FUGITIVE To the Director of Prisons to Mr. Sharad Kumar (Indian Passport No. 0-275309), Mr. Harbhajan Ram (Indian Passport No. 0-317006), and Mr. D.P. Singh (Indian Passport No.0-222527). Whereas Om Prakash Srivastava @ Arun Kumar Aggarwal @ Babloo (referred to in this Warrant as the fugitive) who is accused of the following offences:- (i) conspiracy to commit murder of one L.D. Arora, an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (ii) murder of one Ram Pratap Singh Chauhan, an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (iii) conspiracy to commit murder of one Lalit Kumar Suneja, an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and (iv) conspiracy to kidnap one Vishwanath Mittal, an offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 341, 365, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Republic of India, was delivered into the custody of you the Director of Prisons by Warrant dated the 11th day of August, 1995, in pursuance of the Extradition Act: NOW, THEREFORE, I, the Minister for Law, in pursuance of the Extradition Act, hereby order:- (a) you, the Director of Prisons, to deliver the fugitive into the custody of the said Mr. Sharad Kumar (Indian Passport No. 0-275309), Mr. Harbhajan Ram (Indian Passport No. 0317006), and Mr. D.P. Singh (Indian Passport No. 0-222627); and (b) you, the said Mr. Sharad Kumar (Indian Passport No. 0275309), Mr. Harbhajan Ram (Indian Passport No. 0317006), and Mr. Sharad Kumar (Indian Passport No. 0-275309), Mr. Harbhajan Ram (Indian Passport No. 0317006), and Mr. D.P. Singh (Indian Passport No. 0-222627); and (b) you, the said Mr. Sharad Kumar (Indian Passport No. 0275309), Mr. Harbhajan Ram (Indian Passport No. 0317006), and Mr. D.P. Singh (Indian Passport No. 0-222627), to receive the fugitive into your custody and to convey him to a place in or within the jurisdiction of the Republic of India and there surrender him to some person appointed to receive him. Given under my hand at Singapore this 30th day of August, 1995. Sd/- (S.Jayakumar) Minister for Law Republic of Singapore" 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Case Crime No.260 of 2015 does not find place in Extradition Decree, therefore, in view of provision under Section 21 of the Act, 1962, and Law propounded in aforesaid cases, the petitioner cannot be tried without fulfilment of conditions stipulated in aforesaid section and, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed. 11. Section 21 of the Act, 1962 provides as follows; "21. Accused or convicted person surrendered or returned by foreign State not to be tried for certain offences.--Whenever any person accused or convicted of an offence, which, if committed in India would be an extradition offence, is surrendered or returned by a foreign State, such person shall not, until he has been restored or has had an opportunity of returning to that State, be tried in India for an offence other than-- (a) the extradition offence in relation to which he was surrendered or returned; or (b) any lesser offence disclosed by the facts proved for the purposes of securing his surrender or return other than an offence in relation to which an order for his surrender or return could not be lawfully made; or (c) the offence in respect of which the foreign State has given its consent." 12. A bare reading of aforesaid section and case laws relied by petitioner in rejoinder affidavit, it transpires that the formality of the provision of Section 21 of the Act, 1962 are for trial and not for investigation. 13. A bare reading of aforesaid section and case laws relied by petitioner in rejoinder affidavit, it transpires that the formality of the provision of Section 21 of the Act, 1962 are for trial and not for investigation. 13. In Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, viz., Chapter XIV "conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings" containing Sections 190 to 210, Chapter XIII containing Sections 225 to 235 and dealing with "trial before a Court of Session" pursuant to the committal order under Section 209 and in Chapter XIX " trial of warrant cases by Magistrate " containing Section 238 to 250 etc. deals with procedures of cognizance and the trial in criminal cases. The stage of investigation is prior to the stage of cognizance and the trial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India & others Vs. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, 1996 SCC (4) 127 has propounded that it is settled law that under the Code trial commences with cognizance of offence and processes are issued to the accused for his appearance etc. Equally, in a session trial, the Court considers the committal order under Section 209 Cr.P.C by the Magistrate and proceeds further. It takes cognizance of offence from that stage and proceeds with trial. The trial begins with taking of cognizance of the offence and taking further steps to conduct the trial. 14. In view of the above discussion and law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court, the bar under Section 21 of the Act, 1962 will operate from stage of cognizance not for investigation because if certain formalities are required then it is duty of Investigating Officer to take care of them. So far as evidenciary value of confessional statement of co-accused under Section 161 Cr.P.C in view of provision of Section 25 of the Act, 1872 is concerned, there is no dispute that on the basis of confessional statement of an accused he or other accomplice cannot be convicted but investigation may proceed without any legal bar to find out truthness of accusation. 15. 15. The learned AGA contends that the petitioner is known habitual offender as petitioner while in jail, has involved himself in serious criminal activity of threatening and extortion and FIR has been lodged by Rahul Mahendra on 05.09.2015 at about 23.50 pm as Case Crime No. 260 of 2015 under Sections 364-A, 120-B IPC Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad against unknown persons and the kidnapping in the above mentioned case relates to a renowned jeweler of Allahabad. The Allahabad Police team on 07.09.2015 recovered Pankaj Mahendra from District Fatehpur from possession of accused Vikalp Srivastava @ Golu, Manhendra Yadav, Sachchidananad Yadav @ Sachita Yadav and Chandra Mohan Yadav @ Bablu Yadav and also arrested them. The police team also recovered 9 mm pistol, live cartridges, country made pistol 315 bore, 3 mobile sims and on further investigation the police team found involvement of Bablu Srivastava @ Om Prakash Srivastava. During investigation police team found that Bablu Srivastava @ Om Prakash Srivastava, who is maternal uncle of accused Vikalp Srivastava and is presently detained in Central Jail Bareilly, hatched the conspiracy for kidnapping of Pankaj Mahendra for the demand of Rs. 10 crores. The police team also found that the said conspiracy was hatched by Bablu Srivastava @ Om Prakash Srivastava alongwith other co-accused persons at District Court Lucknow, while he had came for his appearance in a case 25 days prior to the incident. The police after investigation has already submitted charge sheet against Vikalp Srivastava @ Golu, Vinit Parihar, Sachchidananad @ Sachchidanand, Mahendra Yadav, Chandra Mohan Yadav @ Bablu Yadav, Sankalp Srivastava and Sandeep Chaudhary @ Rajesh Kumar Yadav under Sections 364-A, 120-B, 342, 395 and 412 IPC before the Court concerned, whereas investigation with regard to accused Bablu Srivastava @ Om Prakash Srivastava, Bholu Yadav @ Bholu, Arun Singh and Kartikeya Pandey is still pending and after collecting evidence against Bablu Srivastava @ Om Prakash Srivastava the Investigating Officer had moved an application for issuance of 'B' warrant against him, who is lodged in Central Jail Bareilly. On 21.12.2015 'B' warrant was issued against him by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad which has already been served in Central Jail, Bareilly. 16. In view of above, discussion, the submissions made on behalf of petitioner have no legs to stand and in the result, we are of the considered view that the F.I.R do not deserves to be quashed. 17. On 21.12.2015 'B' warrant was issued against him by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad which has already been served in Central Jail, Bareilly. 16. In view of above, discussion, the submissions made on behalf of petitioner have no legs to stand and in the result, we are of the considered view that the F.I.R do not deserves to be quashed. 17. The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.