Meharban vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 548 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
     Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 261 of 2022


Meharban                                             ...... Petitioner

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand
and Another                                      ..... Respondents



Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.




                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Challenge in this petition is made to the

charge sheet dated 02.03.2021 summoning order dated

27.11.2021, passed in the Criminal Case No. 691 of 2021,

State vs. Ajam and others, under Sections 3/5/11 of the

Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 (for short,

"the Act") by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Roorkee,

District Haridwar (for short, "the case").

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, in the case, on

09.05.2021, when a residence was raided, beef along with

cutting and weighing instruments were recovered from the

possession of the co-accused. The applicant, according to

the FIR, managed to escape from the place of occurrence.

After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and

cognizance taken on 27.11.2021. The petitioner has been

summoned to answer the accusation under Section 3/5/11

of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner is unwell and he has been under

treatment for a long. Learned counsel for the petitioner

would refer to the case diary dated 20.12.2021, in which,

the statement of Jishan is referred to. According to which,

on that date, the petitioner has approached Jishan and

inquired from him about the buffalo meat. It is argued that

the petitioner was not slaughtering any cow or cow progeny.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that the

veterinary doctor has established about the beef.

6. This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. Deeper analysis of material may

not be done at this stage. This Court cannot proceed in the

realm of appreciation of evidence at this stage. If prima

facie, case is made out, generally interference is not

warranted. The FIR records that when raided beef was

recovered from certain persons but some other persons,

including the petitioner, who had knife and axe with them,

managed to escape. Charge sheet records that Forensic

Science Laboratory report has also been obtained by the

Investigating Officer. Whether the petitioner was merely a

buyer or was he involved in the slaughtering or storing beef,

it should be a matter of discussion during trial. The

truthfulness, reliability and credibility of the material

collected during investigation would definitely fall for

scrutiny during trial. As stated, at this stage, such

examination may not be done.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court

is of the view that there is no reason to make any

interference in this matter. Accordingly, the petition

deserves to be dismissed.

8. The petition is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.03.2022 Nahid