Allowed

Mohit Dixit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2024A482/18173/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing orders retaining a vehicle seized in animal cruelty proceedings. Court allowed the application, quashed the impugned orders, and directed release of the vehicle to the registered owner subject to conditions including bond, sureties, and non-transfer.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of orders dated 26.04.2024 and 12.02.2024; release of vehicle UP-75-M-3761 on personal bond and sureties.

Mohit Dixit vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182447

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18173 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohit Dixit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anurag Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for the following relief:

¶8

"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Order dated 26.04.2024 passed by Session Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No.31 of 2024 (Mohit Dixit Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 12.02.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No.871 of 2023 (State Vs. Gaurav Dixit and others) U/S 5(A) of Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act, both arising from Case Crime No. 155 of 2023, U/S 3/5A/8, 5B of Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act, 11 Animal Cruelty Act and 429 1.P.C., P.S. Saiyad Raza, District Chandauli.

¶9

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the Order dated 26.04.2024 passed by Session Judge, Chandauli in Criminal Revision No.31 of 2024 (Mohit Dixit Vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 12.02.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Chandauli in Case No.871 of 2023 (State Vs. Gaurav Dixit and others) U/S 5(A) of Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act, both arising from Case Crime No.155 of 2023, U/S 3/5A/8, 5B of Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act, 11 Animal Cruelty Act and 429 I.P.C., P.S. Saiyad Raza, District Chandauli, and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶10

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is the owner of vehicle UP-75-M-3761 which was allegedly used in transportation of 19 cow progenies and during transportation of cow progenies, vehicle was confiscated by the police on finding that cruelty has been committed with the cow progenies while transporting.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is valid owner of the vehicle in question and he was also not aware about the cruelty committed by the person who hired the vehicle. It is also submitted that vehicle in question has been wrongly implanted in the case in question. It is further submitted that even otherwise confiscation of vehicle which is the case property cannot be kept at police station for a long time as trial may take years to conclude. Therefore, vehicle may be released in his favour and he will produce the same whenever required by the court. Applicant also submitted that he is ready to give security for the release of the aforesaid vehicle. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat in SLP (Crl.) No.2745 of 2002 in which Apex Court observed that in appropriate cases vehicle which is the case property can be released on execution of bond and security to prevent evidence being lost, altered or destroyed. Hence, no useful purpose would be served while keeping the vehicle at police station. Relevant extract of the Sunderbhai's case (supra) is being quoted as under:

¶12

"In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

¶13

Another judgement of this court relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant in Application u/s 482 No.20503 of 2021 (Mohd. Laik Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others) vide

¶14

order dated 27.10.2021 as well as judgement of Arbind Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others in Application u/s 482 No.2887 of 2024 vide order dated 06.05.2024.

¶15

Per contra , learned AGA has submitted that vehicle in question has been used in the crime committed under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as the nine cow progenies were meted out cruelty during transportation. Therefore, the owner of the vehicle cannot escape from the liability under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

¶16

After considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that though as per the allegation, the vehicle in question was used in transporting of 19 cow progenies. During transportation, cow progenies were also meted out cruelty but the question arises that despite being a case property, vehicle can be kept for long time at police station, though, the same may be damaged or decayed during the course of time. Even though the vehicle owner is ready to execute bond and sureties to produce the same whenever required by the court.

¶17

This court is of the view that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the vehicle no.UP-75-M-3761 deserves to be released in favour of its registered owner on producing the document regarding his ownership. However, it is further provided while releasing the vehicle no.UP-75-M-3761, following conditions should be fulfilled:

¶18

(i) The applicant will execute personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/-

¶19

and also two sureties for producing the vehicle in question whenever required by the court;

¶20

(ii) During the pendency of case before the court below, vehicle will not be transferred to the third party without leave of the concerned court;

¶21

(iii) Before releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the applicant, it should be duly photographed and that should be kept in record to produce before the court whenever required.

¶22

In view of the above, present application is allowed and the orders dated 26.04.2024 and 12.02.2024 are hereby set aside.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.11.2024 S.Chaurasia

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Dixit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Dixit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Pooja Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooja Sharma vs State of Up and Another

Sandeep Kumar Patel and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Arvind Kumar Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhanu Prakash vs State of U.P. ANOther

Sanjay Kumar and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. /Addl. Chief Secy., Ayush Deptt., Lucknow and Others