Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 74342 (ALL)

SATISH KUMAR MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/16538/2025 · 2025-07-30

Harvir Singh, Rajiv Gupta

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129666-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16538 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh Baish Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 19.5.2025, giving rise to Case Crime No. 109 of 2025, under Sections-3/5A/5B/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Section-11 of Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station- Mirza Murad, District- Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie no offence, complained of, is disclosed against the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, bearing registration No. UP-70-NT- 0552 and without any valid permit has been transporting the cattles outside the State, as such, from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie offence, complained of is clearly disclosed against the petitioner and, as such, the first information report cannot be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against the petitioner and as such, we are not inclined to quash the impugned first information report. 6. The prayer for quashing the impugned FIR is, therefore, refused. 7. However, in case, the petitioner files an application for anticipatory/ regular bail before the appropriate Court, his bail application be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 8. With these observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 HR Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad