HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8197 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayers :- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 03.02.2025, registered as Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Section 3, 5 & 8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station-Kakori, District-Lucknow West (Commissionerate Lucknow). (Annexure No.1). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent nos.02, 03 & 4 not to harass and arrest the Petitioner in pursuance of the impugned dated Report 03.02.2025, registered as Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Section 3, 5 & 8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station- Kakori, District-Lucknow West Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the impugned F.I.R. However, his name has surfaced on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused, thus, the police is harassing him. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the submission made by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Tausheef .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the name of the petitioner has come up in the confessional statement of a co- accused; therefore, it cannot be said that no allegations are made out against the petitioner. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the F.I.R., this Court is of the view that the commissioning of the offence cannot be ruled out merely because the name of the petitioner has surfaced in the confessional statement of a co-accused; this, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing the impugned F.I.R. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. September 4, 2025 A.Dewal CRLP No. 8197 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench