Dismissed

Sobhi and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2022A482/12107/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order alleging cow slaughter, the single judge dismissed the application. The court held that prima facie cognizable offenses were made out based on the FIR and laboratory reports identifying beef, despite contested claims about the meat being buffalo. Consequently, no indulgence was required at that stage.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge sheet and cognizance order is dismissed.

Sobhi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12107 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sobhi And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶6

By way of filing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants pray for quashing the charge sheet dated 16.6.2020 including the cognizance order dated 30.3.2022 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj in case no. 2646 of 2022 arising out of case crime No. 192 of 2019 under Sections 429, 269 IPC and Section 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, P.S. Ganjdudwara, District Kasganj, pending in the court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that without any evidence, charge sheet has been filed against the applicants in the provisions of Cow Slaughter Act. He further submitted that admittedly as per the prosecution the meat which was recovered was of buffalo but in spite of that, charge sheet was filed against the applicants under the provisions of Cow Slaughter Act. He further submitted that rest of the allegations made against the applicants are also totally false and baseless as applicants neither indulged in slaughtering of any animal nor he ever indulged in the business of selling the beef. He further submitted that entire proceeding pending against the applicants as well as impugned charge sheet is totally bad in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that applicants are arrested at the spot and from their possession, number of apparatus was also recovered which was used in assaulting of animals and cows. He further submitted that as during the course of investigation, it reveals as per lab report the meat recovered from the possession of the applicants was beef and therefore, there is no illegality, if, charge-sheet against the applicants has been submitted under the provisions of Cow Slaughter Act and from the perusal of other document on record, prima facie, cognizable offences are made out against the applicants and therefore, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶10

Perusal of the FIR shows that huge quantity of meat of buffalo was recovered along with apparatus from the possession of the applicants who were arrested from the spot. Further, during investigation, as per lab report, meat which was recovered from the spot mentioned as a buffalo meat was beef and therefore, prima facie, offence under the provisions of Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act is made out against the applicants. As far as the other argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is concerned, that some other meat was sent for chemical examination that cannot be appreciated at this stage. Prima facie, cognizable offence against the applicants is made out from the perusal of the FIR and other document on record. Therefore, no indulgence at this stage is need.

¶11

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 24.5.2022 Ankita

¶13

Digitally signed by ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.05.28 14:07:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sobhi and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobhi and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kant Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheena Jindal Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Navi Hasan Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dharamveer Singh Gurjar Vs Alok Kumar Tyagi

Kaushal Kishor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Virma Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another