Dismissed¶16

Kaleem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2025NA528/34660/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS application dismissed; quashing of chargesheet dated 24.06.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 28.07.2025 refused; ACJM Court No. 6 Ghaziabad; Criminal Case no. 3826 of 2025 (State vs. Waseem and others); Case Crime no. 142 of 2025; sections 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act; PS-Bhojpur; prima facie offence made out; false implication is a factual issue for trial court; FIR versus Section 161 Cr.P.C. contradictions; no beef or complete skin found in truck; mini-trial not to be held in Section 528 BNSS proceedings; inherent powers exercised sparingly and with caution; no sufficient ground to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction; Kaleem Ahmad v. State of U.P.; Saurabh Srivastava, J.

What did the court decide?

Upon perusal of the record, prima facie it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. ¶11

Kaleem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 24.06.2025, the order of cognizance/summoning dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 6, Ghaziabad, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 3826 of 2025 (State vs. Waseem and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 142 of 2025 (sections 3/5/8, Cow Slaughter Act, PS-Bhojpur) ought to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Upon perusal of the record, prima facie it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The applicant's assertions of false implication are factual issues requiring proper adjudication by the trial court on the basis of evidence; they cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, and this Court is not inclined to hold a mini-trial in such proceedings.

¶14

Key takeaways

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 was made out to invoke that extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) dismissed an APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 34660 of 2025 filed by Kaleem Ahmad seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 24.06.2025, the cognizance/summoning order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 6, Ghaziabad, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 3826 of 2025 (State vs. Waseem and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 142 of 2025, for offences punishable under sections 3/5/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, PS-Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad. Held: prima facie an offence cannot be said to be absent against the applicant; allegations of false implication, contradictions between the FIR and the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, and the absence of beef or the animal's skin in the truck are factual questions for adjudication by the trial court on evidence; this Court is not inclined to hold a mini-trial in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS; the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and with caution, and no sufficient ground was made out to invoke this extraordinary jurisdiction. Application dismissed (September 18, 2025).

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34660 of 2025

¶3

Kaleem Ahmad

¶4

.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : M J Akhtar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 77

¶6

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

¶8

Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 24.06.2025 order of cognizance/summoning dated 28.07.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 6, Ghaziabad as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case no. 3826 of 2025 (State vs. Waseem and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 142 of 2025 for offence punishable under sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, PS- Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad.

¶9

While assailing entire proceeding in shape of charge sheet and cognizance order, it is contended by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Perusal of FIR and statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. shows that there is contradiction in the narration of same. Neither any quantity of beef or complete skin of animal were found in the truck, hence the entire proceeding is liable to be set aside.

¶10

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

¶11

After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is observed that prima facie it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The assertions of false implication raised by the applicant are factual issues that requires proper adjudication by the trial court based on evidence and cannot be conclusively

¶12

NA528 No. 34660 of 2025

¶13

¶14

determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. In proceeding u/s 528 BNSS, this Court is not inclined to hold mini-trial.

¶15

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.

¶16