Raj Kumari vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72608-DB

Court No. - 42

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8887 of 2025

Petitioner :- Raj Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Naresh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State-respondents and perused the material brought on the record.

¶7

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following principal reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 02.09.2023 passed by Divisional Inspector (Technical), Chandauli, District- Chandauli and order dated 22.09.2023 passed by respondent No.4 to 7 whereby Auction the Truch No. UP63T1175 of the petitioner.

¶9

(ii) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶10

3. The factual matrix, as it emerges from the record, is that an order dated 06.07.2023 was passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli, in Case No. 909 of 2022 ( State vs. Vikki Pandey & Others ) under Section 5-A of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1955" ), wherein, the District Magistrate, concurring with the report dated 10.04.2022 of the Sub-Inspector, Police Station Syedraja, District Chandauli, directed the confiscation of the vehicle in question, and further ordered it to be auctioned with the proceeds to be deposited in the account of the State Government.

¶11

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 29291 of 2023

¶12

before this Court. The learned Single Judge, however, taking note of the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. regarding availability of an alternative statutory remedy, disposed of the application with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court of Sessions.

¶13

5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2023 ( Raj Kumari vs. State of U.P.) before the Sessions Judge, Chandauli, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 03.11.2023, thereby affirming the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the District Magistrate.

¶14

6. Undeterred, the petitioner again invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 44515 of 2023, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 16.01.2024, directing that the vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner, provided that the same had not already been auctioned, and subject to certain terms and conditions.

¶15

7. In the present proceedings, Mr. G.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present petition. It is contended that the relief granted vide order dated 16.01.2024 was rendered infructuous, inasmuch as the auction proceedings had already commenced on 02.09.2023 and were concluded on 22.09.2023, much prior to the said order. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being fully aware of this fact, deliberately chose not to apprise the learned Single Judge of the same.

¶16

8. Learned A.G.A. while raising a preliminary objection submits that the petitioner, having suppressed material facts from the writ court, is not entitled to any equitable relief. The relief granted was conditional, and with the auction having already taken place, the condition precedent for the release of the vehicle no longer survives.

¶17

9. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to refute the factual position that the vehicle had been auctioned on 22.09.2023, prior to the date of the order dated 16.01.2024.

¶18

10. On a careful consideration of the record, we find substance in the objections so raised by the learned A.G.A. for the State. It is evident that the petitioner was fully conversant with the fact that the auction proceedings were concluded on 22.09.2023. Despite this, no disclosure was made before the learned Single Judge at the

¶19

time of filing Application No. 44515 of 2023. The relief granted by the Court was expressly conditional upon the vehicle not having been auctioned. The suppression of this material fact amounts to misleading the Court, and vitiates the relief obtained.

¶20

11. It is a settled principle that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. The petitioner, in the present case, has clearly failed to do so. Once the auction had been finalized, no direction could be issued for release of the vehicle.

¶21

12. In view of the deliberate suppression of facts, the petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

13 . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Sachin

¶24

(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shuaib Alam & 5 Other vs State of U.P. & 2 Other

Amrendra Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sri Lal Singh vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Prem Chandra Kesarwani vs State of Up and 4 Others

Anish and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others