Allahabad High Court
VIKRAM SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Petitioner Vikram Singh, owner of a vehicle that was used to transport a cow and its progeny, challenged an FIR dated 23 September 2025 filed under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 (sections 3, 5A, 8, 5B) and the Arms Act, 1959 (sections 3, 25). He argued that he had no involvement in the purpose of the transport and therefore the prosecution should be quashed. The State, represented by the Attorney General, contended that the vehicle had been seized, no effort was made to recover it, and the petition failed to show that the transport was not for slaughter or that the animals were being moved within the state. The Court found the petitioner's pleadings insufficient, noting the absence of any detail about the actual purpose of transport or the identity of the person who hired the vehicle. Consequently, the Court held that there was no ground to quash the FIR and dismissed the writ petition. The interim order previously granted was vacated.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis for quashing an FIR under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act and the Arms Act?
- Whether the petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle, can be held liable for alleged offences without proof of his participation in the transport purpose.
- Whether the lack of a plea showing the transport was not for slaughter or out‑of‑state movement warrants dismissal of the writ petition.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25, 3
- Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 — s. 3, 5A, 5B, 8
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- prevention of cows slaughter act
- arms act
- vehicle seizure
- writ petition
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25738 of 2025
Vikram Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Singh Sengar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.
1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner
and the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1& 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner-Vikram Singh has approached this Court by means of
present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the F.I.R. dated 23.9.2025
lodged by first informant- respondent 3 Sub-Inspector Santosh Kumar Rai
and registered as Case Crime No. 0208 of 2025, under Sections
3/5A/8/5B of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cows Slaughter Act, 1955 and
Section 3/25 Arms Act, 1959, Police Station-Bhanwarkot, District-
Ghazipur.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in challenge to the impugned F.I.R.
submits that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in which cow and its
progeny were being transported. It is then contended by the learned
counsel for petitioner that petitioner has no concern with the purpose of
transportation of cow or its progeny. As such the criminal prosecution of
petitioner cannot be sustained in law and fact. He, therefore submits that
in view of above, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed by this
Court.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1& 2 has
vehemently opposed the present writ petition.
CRLP No. 25738 of 2025
2
6. Learned A.G.A. submits that pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. dated
23.9.2025, the vehicle of the petitioner must have been seized by the
concerned police personnel. There is nothing on record to show that the
petitioner has initiated proceeding for the release of his vehicle.
7. Apart from above, no pleading has been raised in the present writ
petition to demonstrate and establish that the transportation of cow or its
progeny was being made for the purpose of transporting them within the
State and not taking them outside the State. No pleadings have been
raised in present writ petition that the cow and its progeny were not being
transported for the purpose of slaughtering. The name of the person who
took the services of petitioner's vehicle has also not been disclosed in the
present writ petition. He therefore submits that in view of above, no good
or sufficient ground has emerged so as to quash the impugned F.I.R. As
such present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for the petitioner
could not overcome the same.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the A.G.A.
representing State-respondents 1 & 2, and upon perusal of record, we find
that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to the
present writ petition are clearly borne out from the record. Furthermore,
the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for the petitioner
with reference to the record at this stage.
10. In view of the above, this writ petition fails and is liable to be
dismissed.
11. It is accordingly dismissed.
12. Interim order if any stands vacated.
(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
March 19, 2026
ADY
Digitally signed by :-
AMAR DEEP YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…