Mahipal vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125981

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3720 of 2025

Applicant :- Mahipal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA.

¶7

The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of warrant order dated 19.03.2024, chargesheet dated 17.06.2012 and summoning order dated 13.08.2012 along with entire proceedings of Case No.2885 of 2013 (State Vs. Ravi Shanker and others), arising out of Case Crime No.955 of 2012, under Sections 9/39/40(2)/44/51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant has assailed the entire proceedings of Case No.2885 of 2013 on the ground that under Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act, it is only the competent officer who is entitled to file a complaint for the purpose of taking cognizance, in the absence of which, learned court concerned was not justified in taking cognizance of the offences pursuant to Case Crime No.955 of 2012 lodged by the opposite party no.2/SubInspector of Police who is not a competent officer within the meaning of Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act and as such, the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

¶9

Although, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but did not dispute the provisions of Section 55 of the Act.

¶10

After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties as well as perusal of the records, it would be appropriate to quote Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act which is herein below:-

¶11

"55. Cognizance of offences.- No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than-

¶12

(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorized in

¶13

this behalf by the Central Government; or

¶14

(aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IVA; or

¶15

(ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or

¶16

(ac)Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or

¶17

(ad) the Management Authority or any officer, including an officer of the Wild Life Crime Control Bureau, authorized in this behalf by the Central Government; or

¶18

(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government; or

¶19

(bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38-J; or

¶20

(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 authorized as aforesaid."

¶21

In the instant case, it is undisputed fact as borne out from the material available on record that the FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2, who does not fit into any of the categories enumerated under Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act and consequently, learned court concerned clearly fell in an error in taking cognizance of the offences against the applicant and on this ground, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶22

In view thereof, warrant order dated 19.03.2024, chargesheet dated 17.06.2012 and summoning order dated 13.08.2012 along with entire proceedings of Case No.2885 of 2013 (State Vs. Ravi Shanker and others), arising out of Case Crime No.955 of 2012, under Sections 9/39/40(2)/44/51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, are hereby quashed.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant application is allowed .

¶24

However, this order would not come in the way of competent authorities to initiate fresh proceedings against applicant herein, if they so desire, in accordance with law. .

¶25

Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Vivek Kr.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahipal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Babu and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Goyal Alias Banti and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Neha Rani and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hridesha and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Archana Trivedi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kapil and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others