RAJENDRA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME AND 4 OTHERS
/9019/2025 · 2025-09-24
Subhash Vidyarthi
Special Leave Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 166024 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 166024 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9019 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajan Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Avishesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant petitioner filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 11.04.2025, passed by the Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda in Case No.1404 of 2024 (Computerized Case No.C2024408000001404) under Section 5A(8) of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act as well as the order dated 22.03.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda in Case No.882 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.D202308300000882), under Section 5-A U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, arising out of Case Crime No.132 of 2023, under Sections 3, 5A & 8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Tarabganj, District Gonda. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the authorities concerned to release the seized vehicle bearing registration No.UP62 T 3086 in his favour.
3. Learned AGA-I has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Neeta Singh & Ors. v. The State of U.P. & Ors. in SLP (Criminal) No.13578 of 2024 and Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharasthra & Anr.; (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1948, the writ petition filed challenging validity of judicial orders is not maintainable.
4. Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the instant writ petition and seeks liberty to file a fresh petition in accordance with the law. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rajendra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed leaving the aforesaid liberty open for the petitioner.
6. Let certified copies of the orders annexed with the writ petition be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining their photocopies on record. September 24, 2025 Ram.
CRLP No. 9019 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench