Allahabad High Court
Smt. Basmati vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122593 Court No. - 85 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7466 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Basmati Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiva Kant Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh in Case No. 2425 State Vs. Basmati arises out of Case Crime No. 367 of 2024 under Section 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act, P.S.-Aharaula, District-Azamgarh.
The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition is that, on 21.08.2024, a police personnel lodged an FIR at Police Station-Aharaula, District-Azamgarh as Case Crime No. 367 of 2024 under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of the Animal Cruelty Act, 1960 against Munna alias Katari and three others alleging that two cows and two calves were severely tethered in the vehicle No. UP 50 DT 5298.
After taking cognizance of the matter, a show cause notice was issued on 06.09.2024 to the owner of the vehicle which was registered in the name of the petitioner Smt. Basmati. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Azamgarh for release of her vehicle No.UP 50 DT 5298.
However, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh vide order dated 15.05.2025, rejected the release application of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2025 before the Court of District Judge, Azamgarh which was also rejected vide order dated 28.05.2025.
The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the owner of vehicle No.UP 50 DT 5298is being harassed without any basis as she is not named in the FIR. It has been pleaded that the petitioner possesses the certificate of registration as well as permit in respect to the goods. The petitioner has no other source of income except the income derived from the said vehicle. The petitioner is innocent and is unaware about the commission of the offence as alleged to have been committed by the driver nor had given any consent for the commission of such offence. It has also been pleaded that the alleged offence was stated to have committed in UP and not outside U.P., therefore, no offence under Section3/5A/8of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act has been committed.There is no public witness of the alleged recovery. The petitioner has no other criminal antecedents.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the proceedings under Section3/5A/8of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act has been rightly initiated as the alleged vehicle was used in transportation of the cow and its progeny (bovines) for their slaughtering and were recovered from the alleged vehicle of the petitioner and thereafter, the FIR was registered and accordingly, the vehicle was seized. Learned AGA has further raised an objection that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner should have availed the appropriate remedy as per the Notification No. U.O./77 U.O-VI-P-9-2024 dated 15.10.2024 issued by the Government of UP before the Divisional Commissioner as against the order of confiscation passed by District Magistrate initiated under Section 5A of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, the revision lies before the Divisional Commissioner.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty that petitioner may be permitted to file criminal revision against the impugned order before the Divisional Commissioner after the condonation of delay.
Hence, in pursuance to the aforesaid notification, the petitioner may avail an appropriate alternative remedy to redress her grievances.
The petition is disposed of with a direction to file a criminal revision before the Divisional Commissioner within a period of four weeks from today, which shall be heard and decided expeditiously, by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties preferably within a period of six weeks after condoning the delay, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Nisha