Dismissed

Mohd Asif and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2025NA528/11511/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash cognizance order and charge sheet under the Cow Slaughter Act, alleging implication based solely on confessional statement. Court held prima facie offence was made out; false implication is a trial issue.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohd Asif and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53355

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11511 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd Asif And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Irfan Alim Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Irfan Alim Siddiqui, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

¶7

Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the summoning/cognizance order dated 28.06.2022 passed by learned A.C.J.M, District- Ghaziabad in Case no. 2721/22 "State vs. Suleman and others" under sections 3, 5, 8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, PSMasuri, District Ghaziabad as well as the impugned charge sheet no. 01 dated 12.03.2021 arising out of Case Crime no. 646/2019 under sections 3, 5, 8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, PS- Masuri, District Ghaziabad and consequential proceeding thereof so far as it relates to the applicants.

¶8

Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for applicants are that FIR has been lodged against applicant no. 1 and another co-accused over the allegation that during police raid, both the accused persons have been arrested after recovering about 40 kg of cow meat from their possession. In the confessional statement, both the accused persons took the name of applicant no. 2 and they confessed in police custody that they have cut the cow meat and were going to sell it. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on dated 12.03.2021 whereupon, learned court concerned took cognizance vide impugned order dated 28.06.2022.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that on the basis of confessional statement of applicant no. 1, the Investigating Officer inducted the name of the applicant no. 2 in the FIR, it is out of context to mention that confessionl statement has no veracity and authenticity under the eye of law given to police officers. Even considering the facts of the case, it is crystal clear that other than the confessional statement, there is no evidence which demonstrate that applicant no. 2 was involved in said offence. Applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, only on the basis of statement of police officials. There is no cow meat ever recovered by the police concerned.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application.

¶11

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of summoning/cognizance, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini trial or to examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241 it was held that the test which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465 , it was reiterated that the limited purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt".

¶12

Upon perusal of the records, including FIR, charge sheet, confessional statement of applicant no. 1 etc., it is observed that prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicants are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

¶13

It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, primarily to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no sufficient ground have been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

¶14

In view of the foregoing, the application under Section 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 9.4.2025

¶16

Shaswat

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Asif and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohd Asif and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases