Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ratanlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29781
1 WP-39310-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 39310 of 2025
RATANLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bharat Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for the State.
ORDER
1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, District Mandsaur, as
affirmed by the Commissioner in appeal by order dated 16.09.2025
(Annexure P/2) whereby his vehicle Bolero Pickup bearing registration
No.RJ-09-GB-5959 has been confiscated on account of registration of a
criminal case against him vide Crime No.231/2024 at Police Station
Pipliyamandi, District Mandsaur for the offence punishable under Sections 4,
6 and 9 of M.P. Gauvansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, Section 11(1)(d) of
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Sections 4, 6, 10 and 11 of M.P.
Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the trial is
still pending before the Criminal Court and no final judgment has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29781
2 WP-39310-2025
passed therein, hence in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court
at Jabalpur in W.P. No.11356/2024 (Ramlal Jhariya V/s. State of M.P. and
others) and other connected petitions decided on 21.04.2025, the petitioner is
entitled for release of the vehicle.
3. In the case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra) the Full Bench of this Court
has held as under :-
"96-B. For cases under Cow Progeny Act, the Collector/District
Magistrate shall be competent to initiate proceedings for confiscation
during pendency of criminal trial, but no confiscation order can be
passed before conclusion of criminal trial and the Collector/District
Magistrate would be empowered to confiscate the vehicle only if
conviction is recorded in criminal trial and involvement of vehicle and
knowledge/connivance of the owner is proved in the criminal trial."
4. The Collector could have initiated proceedings for confiscation
during pendency of criminal trial but could not have passed the order of
confiscation before conclusion of the trial. He could have done so only after
conviction was recorded in the criminal trial and involvement of vehicle and
knowledge/connivance of the owner was proved therein.
5. Thus, in the available facts of the case, it is directed that the
petitioner should produce the certified copies of proceedings of the criminal
trial before the Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, District Barwani for
demonstrating that the criminal trial is still pending. Upon the same being
produced and if the trial is still pending, the impugned order dated
30.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) and 16.09.2025 (Annexure P/2) shall stand set
aside and the custody of the vehicle Bolero Pickup bearing registration
No.RJ-09-GB-5959 shall be handed over to the petitioner within a period of
seven days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the ordersheets of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29781
3 WP-39310-2025
Criminal Court.
6. It is however made clear that if after passing of the impugned
order and in the meanwhile the vehicle in question has already been
auctioned, then this order shall not come into operation and the impugned
order shall stand.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
