Partly allowed

Saleem and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2025NA528/49489/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash criminal proceedings and chargesheet under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The High Court found the Magistrate took cognizance without examining the chargesheet or recording a date, and wrongly invoked Section 13 though the chargesheet cited Section 11 and Section 429 IPC. Cognizance order set aside; fresh order directed.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order arising out of chargesheet dated 01.08.2021 set aside; trial court remanded to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Saleem and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 49489 of 2025

¶3

Saleem And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Pradeep Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 78

¶7

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the state of U.P.

¶9

Present application under section 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.451/IX of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2021, under Section 11/13 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station Mahavan, District Mathura, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.1-Mathura as well as chargesheet dated 01.08.2021 and cognizance/summoning order dated Nil through which the Learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence and summoning the applicants.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR was registered against the applicants as well as other co-accused on 05.05.2021, arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2021, under Section 11/13 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1960'), Police Station Mahavan, District Mathura. As per version of the FIR, a raid was conducted by the Station House Officer of Police Station Mahavan, District- Mathura and 7 persons namely Furkan, Ashu alias Aas Mohammad, Rashid, Jishan, Mausim, Bantu @ Shakeel, Shanu were arrested on the spot and some persons were said to have run away from the spot. Some recoveries were also shown from the possession of the accused persons and name of the present applicants were also introduced through the confessional statement of coaccused, which is not admissible under law in view of Section 25 of the

¶11

NA528 No. 49489 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Indian Evidence Act 1872. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicants to connect them with the alleged offence and there is no admissible evidence against them except the confessional statement of co-accused persons, which are not admissible under section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but this fact was completely ignored by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance on the chargesheet dated 01.08.2021, arising out of aforesaid case crime. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the learned Magistrate did not go through the chargesheet and wrongly and illegally took cognizance of offence though no criminal case is made out against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547, wherein it has been held that confession of co-accused is not admissible.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer made by the applicants with regard to quashing of the chargesheet, however, he also stated that the learned Magistrate has not passed the order in accordance with law. No date was mentioned by the learned Magistrate when he took cognizance of offence. The Investigating Officer had added section 429 IPC during course of investigation and investigation was dropped under Section 13 of the Act 1960 but this fact was completely overlooked by the learned Magistrate and he took cognizance under 11/13 of the Act 1960. It appears that the learned Magistrate did not go through the contents of chargesheet and he just saw the FIR when he took cognizance of offence, therefore, he took cognizance under section 11/13 of the Act 1960 though the chargesheet was not submitted under Section 13 of the Act 1960. Learned AGA also submitted that the order of taking cognizance by learned Magistrate is an illegal order and the same deserves to be set aside by this court and he may be directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶15

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties and perused the record.

¶16

From perusal of the impugned chargesheet, it is clear that the

¶17

NA528 No. 49489 of 2025

¶18

¶19

chargesheet was submitted under section 11 of the Act 1960 and section 429 of IPC and learned Magistrate did not take cognizance under section 429 IPC but has wrongly took cognizance under Section 13 of the Act 1960, though no charge-sheet was submitted under that Section. It appears that the Magistrate did not see contents of charge-sheet at the time of taking cognizance. No date of taking cognizance was mentioned by the Magistrate. It reflects that the Magistrate just saw the FIR while taking cognizance and no other material was considered by him.

¶20

For aforesaid reasons, the order taking taking cognizance against the applicants arising out of aforementioned chargesheet dated 01.08.2021 is set aside. The learned Magistrate will go through the case diary and will look as to whether there is any admissible evidence against the applicants and only thereafter he will proceed further, in accordance with law.

¶21

The matter is remanded to the trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶22

Present application is partly allowed .

¶23

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶24

December 18, 2025

¶25

Nitendra

¶26

Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saleem and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem and 3 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahjahan Khatoon and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Khushabu Rajbhar and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Farheen @ Mahi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Palak Alias Reshu and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Shraddha Lodhi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Najiya and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others