Allahabad High Court
Riyasat Ali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:173897
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35077 of 2024
Riyasat Ali
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Santosh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application has been filed for seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.328442 of 2024 (State vs. Murad Ali & Others) under Sections 2, 9, 39, 48, 49(B), 50, 51, 57 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 52 of Indian Forest Act and Section 7 and 55 of Biodiversity Conversation Act, 2002, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur arising out of Forest Crime Report dated 17.05.2024, Range Case No. 10 of 2024-25 Range Tilkoniya, Beat-Rajahi, District Gorakhpur.
3. Learned counsel for applicant has assailed the chargesheet and order of taking cognizance of offence on the ground that under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, there is a complete embargo for the court to take cognizance of the offence under the said Act except on complaint of any person other than the officers/person specified thereunder whereas in the present case, FIR was lodged by a person who is not specified in Section 55 of the said Act and as such, entire proceedings of Case No.328442 of 2024 (State vs. Murad Ali & Others) may be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel for applicant relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan and others [AIR 1989 SC 1].
4. Although learned AGA opposed the prayer as sought through the instant petition but did not dispute the legal argument as raised by learned counsel for applicant.
5. For re-appreciation of the arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant, it is important to have Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 which is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"55. Cognizance of offences.-
No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than-
(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or (aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IVA; or (ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or (ac)Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or [(ad) the Management Authority or any officer, including an officer of the Wild Life Crime Control Bureau, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or]
(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government; or (bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38J; or
(c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid."
6. A perusal of the above provision would indicate that it imposes a complete embargo on the court to take cognizance of any offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 except on the complaint of any person other than enumerated thereunder and once cognizance is vitiated, entire prosecution is liable to be quashed.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Murad Ali Khan (supra) held that an FIR based investigation in respect of an offence under the said Act, was barred by Section-55 of the Act and reiterated the legal position that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on the complaint of the authorities specified thereunder.
8. In the case in hand, the FIR was lodged by a person for an alleged offence under Section 9, 39, 44, 49(B), 50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as such, the prosecution arising therefrom is a nullity as the same is in teeth of Section-55 of the Act.
9. In view thereof, chargesheet and entire proceedings of Case No.328442 of 2024 (State vs. Murad Ali & Others) under Sections 2, 9, 39, 48, 49(B), 50, 51, 57 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 52 of Indian Forest Act and Section 7 and 55 of Biodiversity Conversation Act, 2002, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur arising out of Forest Crime Report dated 17.05.2024, Range Case No. 10 of 2024-25 Range Tilkoniya, Beat-Rajahi, District Gorakhpur, are hereby set aside.
10. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.
11. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the concerned authorities to initiate fresh proceedings, if they so desire, in accordance with law.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.) September 25, 2025 Rakesh