# Mohd. Abdul Khaliq v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 766
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-14
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 1743 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-abdul-khaliq-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-49828
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Uttar Pradesh Cow
Slaughter Prevention Act, 1955-Sections
3, 5 & 8 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
-
Section
482-Prohibit
slaughter,
sale/transport
of
cow/beef-Offences
punishable with imprisonment and fineSection 482 Cr.P.C.-Inherent powers of High
Court-To prevent abuse of process or secure
ends
of
justice-Quashing
of
criminal
proceedings-Tests: Whether allegations prima
facie establish offence, chances of ultimate
conviction bleak, useful purpose in continuing
proceedings-Cow
slaughter-Religious
sentiments-Cow revered in Hindu religionNeed to respect religious beliefs in secular
society-Quashing
at
initial
stage-Not
warranted
where
materials
prima
facie
disclose commission of offence under special
law like Cow Slaughter Act.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
legal right to be heard unless and until
summoning order is passed against him.

5. In support of his submission
learned A.G.A. has relied upon a judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union
of India Vs. WIN Chaddha reported in
1993 SCC (Criminal) 1171 wherein
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a
proposed accused in an application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has got no right to
be heard either on the application before
the Magistrate or in revision before the
revisional court. Hon'ble Apex Court has
also affirmed the judgment of this Court in
the case of Father Thomas Vs. State of
U.P. reported in 2011 (72) ACC 564
(Allahabad) (Full Bench) wherein this
Court has held that an accused does not
have any right to be heard before he is
summoned by the Court under the Code of
Criminal Procedure and he has got no right
to raise any objection till the stage of
summoning and resultantly he cannot be
conferred with a right to challenge the
order passed against him under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. prior to his summoning. If the
Magistrate has allowed an application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing the
police to register FIR and investigate,
revision
against
such
order
is
not
maintainable under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
parties and keeping in view the authority
relied upon by the learned A.G.A., I do not
find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment and order dated
27.01.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/ F.T.C./J.M. Bahraich in
Criminal Case No. 3033 of 2022.

7. Therefore, this revision is not
maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 766
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 1743 of 2021

Mohd. Abdul Khaliq ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Akhtar Jahan, Bahar Ali

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Uttar Pradesh Cow
Slaughter Prevention Act, 1955-Sections
3, 5 & 8 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
-
Section
482-Prohibit
slaughter,
sale/transport
of
cow/beef-Offences
punishable with imprisonment and fineSection 482 Cr.P.C.-Inherent powers of High
Court-To prevent abuse of process or secure
ends
of
justice-Quashing
of
criminal
proceedings-Tests: Whether allegations prima
facie establish offence, chances of ultimate
conviction bleak, useful purpose in continuing
proceedings-Cow
slaughter-Religious
sentiments-Cow revered in Hindu religionNeed to respect religious beliefs in secular
society-Quashing
at
initial
stage-Not
warranted
where
materials
prima
facie
disclose commission of offence under special
law like Cow Slaughter Act.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1960 S.C.866

2. St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426

3. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192 and
3 All. Mohd. Abdul Khaliq Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
767
4. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr.,(Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283

5. S.W. Palankattkar & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 2002
(44) ACC 168

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Shri Bahar Ali, the learned
counsel for the applicant as well as Shri
Prem Prakash, Mrs. Kiran Singh and Shri
Hari
Shankar
Vajpayee,
the
learned
A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the
record.

2. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant with a prayer to
quash the charge sheet No. 424 of 2019
as well as entire proceeding of Case No.
1548 of 2020, State Vs. Mohd. Khaliq,
arising out of Case Crime No. 462 of
2018, under Section 3/5/8 of Uttar
Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter
Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act 1955'), Police Station Dewa, District
Barabanki, pending in the court of
learned
additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 16, Barabanki.

3. The facts of the case in short is that
a first information report dated 02.11.2019
was lodged by the at Police Station Dewa,
District Barabanki with the allegation that
on an information received by informer
when A.S.I.-Dharmendra Kumar Yadav
and other police personnel reached at
Sarsaudi Village near the school they saw
one person coming holding a sack, on
seeing police personnel that person tried to
return back, but the police caught him and
on his search beef of cow progeny was
found in the sack holding by him. On
interrogation the said person told his name
Zahoor, he told that he along with the
applicant are involved in cow slaughtering
and he was going to Lucknow for selling
the same.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that there is no chemical analysis
report from the veterinary doctor whether
seized meat belongs to cow progeny and in
the absence of any chemical analysis
report, the Investigating Officer submitted
charge
sheet
against
the
applicant,
whereupon the learned Magistrate has also
taken cognizance in a routine manner and
summoned the applicant for facing trial.

5. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocates submit that charge
sheet was rightly submitted by the
Investigating officer and the cognizance
taken by the learned Magistrate is also in
accordance with law. The name of
applicant
came
into
light
in
the
confessional
statement
of
co-accused,
Zahoor, who was arrested along with the
cow meat, who confessed that he and the
applicant were involved in slaughtering of
cow, therefore, prima facie offence under
Section 3/5/8 of the Act, 1955 is made out
against the applicant.

6. After considering the arguments as
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and from the perusal of the charge
sheet as well as cognizance order and the
F.I.R., offence under Section 3/5/8 of the
Act, 1955 is prima facie made out against
the applicants. No case is made out for
quashing of the proceeding of Criminal
Case No. 525 of 2020, under Section 3/5/8
of Act, 1955. It is relevant to quote Section
3, 5, & 8 of Act, 1955 for adjudication of
this case :

3. Prohibition of cow slaughter.-(1)
Except as hereinafter provided, no person
shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered,
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or offer or cause to be offered for
slaughter-

(a) a cow, or 3

(b) a bull or bullock, unless he has
obtained in respect thereof a certificate in
writing, from the competent authority of
the area in which the bull or bullock is to
be slaughtered, certifying that it is fit for
slaughter, in any place in Uttar Pradesh;
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force or an usage or custom
to the contrary notwithstanding.

(2) No bull or bullock, in respect of
which a certificate has been issued under
sub-section (1) (b) shall be slaughtered at
any place other than the place indicated in
the certificate.[***]

(3) A certificate under sub-section (1)
(b) shall be issued by the competent
authority, only after it has, for reasons to be
recorded in writing; certified that-

(a) the bull or bullock is over the age
of [fifteen years] or

(b) in the case of a bull, it has become
permanently unfit and unserviceable for the
purpose of breeding and, in the case of
bullock, it. has become permanently unfit
and unserviceable for the purposes of
daughter and any kind of agricultural
operation :

Provided that the permanent unfitness
or un-serviceability has not been caused
deliberately.

(4) The competent authority, shall,
before issuing the certificate under subsection (3) or refusing to issue the same,
record its order in writing [***].

(5) The State Government may, at any
time, for the purposes of satisfying itself as
to the legality or propriety of the action
taken under this section call for and
examine the record of any case and may
pass such order thereon as it may deem fit.

[(6) Subject to the provisions herein
contained, and action taken under this
section, shall be final and conclusive and
shall not be called in question.]

5. Prohibition on sale of beef.-Except
as herein excepted and notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, no person shall sell or
transport or offer for sale or transport or
cause to be sold or transported beef or beefproducts in any form except for such
medicinal purposes as may be prescribed.

Exception. - A person may sell and
serve or cause to be sold and served beef or
beef-products for consumption by a bona
fide passenger in an air-craft or railway
train.

[5A. Regulation on transport of cow,
etc.-(1) No person shall transport or offer
for transport or cause to be transported any
cow, or bull or bullock, the slaughter
whereof in any place in Uttar Pradesh is
punishable under this Act, from any place
within the State to any place outside the
State, except under a permit issued by an
officer authorised by the State Government
in this behalf by notified order and except
in
accordance
with
the
terms
and
conditions of such permit.

(2) Such officer shall issue the permit
on payment of such fee not exceeding five
rupees for every cow, bull or bullock as
may be prescribed :

Provided
that
no
fee
shall
be
chargeable where the permit is for transport
of the cow, bull or bullock for a limited
period not exceeding six months as may be
specified in the permit.

(3) Where the person transporting a
cow, bull or bullock on a permit for a
limited period does not bring back such
cow, bull or bullock into the State within
the period specified in the permit, he shall
be deemed to have contravened the
provision of sub-section (1).

(4) The form of permit, the form of
application therefor and the procedure for
3 All. Mohd. Abdul Khaliq Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
769
disposal of such application shall be such
as may be prescribed.

(5) The State Government or any
officer authorised by it in this behalf by
general or special notified order, may, at
any time, for the purpose of satisfying
itself, or himself, as to the legality or
propriety of the action taken under this
section, call for and examine the record of
any case and pass such orders thereon as it
or he may deem fit].

[(6) Where the said conveyance has
been confirmed to be related to beef by the
competent
authority
or
authorised
laboratory under this Act, the driver,
operator and owner related to transport,
shall be charged with the offence under this
Act, unless it is not proved that the
transport medium used in crime, despite all
its precautions and without its knowledge,
has been used by some other person for
causing the offence.

(7) The vehicle by which the beef or
cow and its progeny is transported in
violation of the provisions of this Act and
the relevant rules, shall be confiscated and
seized by the law enforcement officers. The
concerned
District
Magistrate/Commissioner of Police will do
all proceedings of confiscation and release,
as the case may be.

(8) The cow and its progeny or the
beef transported by the seized vehicle shall
also be confiscated and seized by the law
enforcement
officers.
The
concerned
District Magistrate/ Commissioner will do
all proceedings of the confiscation and
release, as the case may be.

(9)
The
expenditure
on
the
maintenance of the seized cows and its
progeny shall be recovered from the
accused for a period of one year or till the
release of the cow and its progeny in favour
of the owner thereof whichever is earlier.

(10) Where a person is prosecuted for
committing, abetting, or attempting to an
offense under Sections 3, 5 and 8 of this
Act and the beef or cow-remains in the
possession of accused has been proved by
the prosecution and transported things are
confirmed to be beef by the competent
authority or authorised laboratory, then the
court shall presume that such person has
committed such offence or attempt or
abetment of such offence, as the case may
be, unless the contrary is proved.

(11) Where the provisions of this Act
or the related rules in context of search,
acquisition, disposal and seizure are silent,
the relevant provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be effective
thereto.]

[5B. Whoever causes any physical
injury to any cow or its progeny so as to
endanger the life thereof such as to mutilate
its body or to transport it in any situation
whereby endangering the life thereof or
with the intention of endangering the life
thereof does not provide with food or water
shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than one year
and which may extend to seven years and
with fine which shall not be less than one
Lakh rupees and which may extend to three
Lakh rupees.]

[8. (1) Whoever contravenes or
attempts to contravene or abets the
contravention of the provisions of Section
3, Section 5 or Section 5-A shall be guilty
of an offence punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than three years and which may be
extend to ten years and with fine which
shall not be less than three Lakh rupees and
which may extend to five Lakh rupees.

(2) Whoever after conviction of an
offence under this Act is again guilty of an
offence under this Act, shall be punished
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with double the punishment provided for
the said offence for the second conviction.

(3) The names and the photograph of
the person accused of the contravention of
the provision of Section 5-A shall be
published at some prominent place in
locality where the accused ordinarily
resides or to a public place, if he conceals
himself from the law enforcement officers.]

7. Accordingly, the contention of the
learned counsel for the applicant that no
offence against the applicant is disclosed
and the present prosecution has been
instituted with a malafide intention for the
purposes of harassment, has no force.

8. We are living in a secular country
and must have respect for all religions and
in Hinduism, the belief and faith is that cow
is representative of divine and natural
beneficence and should therefore be
protected and venerated. The cow has also
been associated with various deities,
notably Lord Shiva (whose steed is Nandi,
a bull) Lord Indra (closely associated with
Kamadhenu, the wise-granting cow), Lord
Krishna (a cowherd in his youth), and
goddesses in general (because of the
maternal attributes of many of them). The
cow is the most sacred of all the animals of
Hinduism. It is known as Kamadhenu, or
the divine cow, and the giver of all desires.
According to legend, she emerged from the
ocean
of
milk
at
the
time
of
Samudramanthan or the great churning of
the ocean by the gods and demons. She was
presented to the seven sages, and in the
course of time came into the custody of
sage, Vasishta. Her legs symbolise four
Vedas; her source of milk is four
Purushartha (or objectives, i.e. dharma or
righteousness, artha or material wealth,
kama or desire and moksha or salvation);
her horns symbolise the gods, her face the
sun and moon, and her shoulders agni or
the god of fire. She has also been described
in other forms: Nanda, Sunanda, Surabhi,
Susheela and Sumana.

9. The origin of the veneration of the
cow can be traced to the Vedic period (2nd
millennium 7th century BCE). The IndoEuropean peoples who entered India in the
2nd millennium BCE were pastoralists;
cattle had major economic significance that
was reflected in their religion. The
slaughter of milk- producing cows was
increasingly prohibited. It is forbidden in
parts of the Mahabharata, the great
Sanskrit epic, and in the religious and
ethical code known as the Manu-Smirti
("Tradition of Manu"), and the milk cow
was already in the Rigveda said to be
"unslayable". The degree of veneration
afforded the cow is indicated by the use in
rites of healing purification, and penance of
the panchagavya, the five products of the
cow-milk, curd, butter, urine, and dung.

10. Subsequently, with the rise of
the ideal of Ahimsa ("non-injury"), the
absence of the desire to harm living
creatures, the cow came to symbolize a
life of nonviolent generosity. In addition,
because her products supplied nourishment,
the cow was associated with motherhood
and Mother Earth and legislation against
cow killing persisted into the 20th century
in many princely states.

11. Legends also state that Brahma
gave life to priests and cows same time so
that the priests could recite religious
scriptures
while
cows
could
afford
ghee(clarified butter) as offering in rituals.
Anyone who kills cows or allows others
to kill them is deemed to rot in hell as
many years as there are hairs upon his
body. Likewise, the bull is depicted as a
3 All. Mohd. Abdul Khaliq Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
771
vehicle of Lord Shiva: a symbol of respect
for the male cattle.

12. In the Mahabharata, Bhishma
(grandfather of the leaders of warring
factions) observes that the cow acts as a
surrogate mother by providing milk to
human beings for a lifetime, so she is
truly the mother of the world. The
Puranas state that nothing is more religious
than the gift of cows. Lord Rama was given
a gift of many cows.

13. In the late 19th and 20th
century, in India, a movement to protect
cows arose that strove to unify the
citizens
by
demanding
that
the
Government of India ban cow slaughter
with immediate effect in the country.

14. This Court also hope and trust
that the Central Government may take
appropriate
decision
to
ban
cow
slaughtering in the country and to
declare the same as 'protected national
animal'.

15. From the perusal of the materials
on record and looking into the facts of the
present case and after considering the
arguments made at the bar, it does not
appear that no offence has been made out
against the applicant.

16. At the stage of issuing process the
court below is not expected to examine and
assess in detail the material placed on
record, only this has to be seen whether
prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed
or not. The Apex Court has also laid down
the
guidelines
where
the
criminal
proceedings
could
be
interfered
and
quashed in exercise of its power by the
High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P.
Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960
S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State
of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and
another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.

17. From the aforesaid decisions the
Apex Court has settled the legal position
for quashing of the proceedings at the
initial stage. The test to be applied by the
court
is
to
whether
uncontroverted
allegation as made prima facie establishes
the offence and the chances of ultimate
conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing criminal
proceedings to be continue. In S.W.
Palankattkar & others Vs. State of
Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
quashing of the criminal proceedings is an
exception than a rule. The inherent powers
of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C
itself envisages three circumstances under
which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under
the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. The power of
High Court is very wide but should be
exercised very cautiously to do real and
substantial justice for which the court alone
exists.

18. The High Court would not embark
upon an inquiry as it is the function of the
Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the
threshold of quashing of the charge
sheet/criminal proceedings in case in
hand cannot be said to be exceptional as
it discloses prima facie commission of an
offence. In the result, the prayer for
quashing of charge sheet/ criminal
proceedings of Case No. 1548 of 2020,
State Vs. Mohd. Khaliq, arising out of
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Crime No. 462 of 2018, under
Section
3/5/8
of
Uttar
Pradesh
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955,
Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki
is refused. There is no merit in this
application filed by the applicant under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

19. In view of the aforesaid
submissions made by the learned counsel
for
the
parties
and
considering
the
judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court referred above, this Court finds no
merit in the present application and the
same is liable to be dismissed.

20.

Accordingly,
the
present
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
filed by the applicant is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 772
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 9839 of 2022

Chhotakki @ Kiran ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Arvind Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Civil Law - Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act-Section 7A-FIR
lodged in 2000-Applicant was minor-implicatedlater got married and lived separately with her
husband-prior
to
marriage-appeared
and
enlarged on bail-summons never served upon
the Applicant- Application in 2022 moved by
Applicant claiming herself juvenile at the time of
incident-not
considered-impugned-whenever
claim of juvenility raised-Court shall make
immediate inquiry for determining the age to
conclude juvenility-claim can be raised at any
stage -even after final disposal of case or after
final order passed in an appeal-delay cannot be
ground for rejection-impugned order set aside.
Application allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs St. of W.
B., 2012 (10) SCC489

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Verma,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for
the State.

2. Since pure legal question is
involved in this matter, therefore the notice
to the opposite party no. 2 is hereby
dispensed with.

3. By means of the instant application,
the applicant has prayed for quashing of the
impugned order of non-bailable warrant
dated 27.09.2022 and impugned order
dated 07.12.2022, passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, in
Criminal Case No. 3095 of 2001, arising
out of case crime no. 172 of 2001, under
Sections 498A, 304B of the IPC and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
relating to Police Station Pisawan, District
Sitapur.

4. Factual matrix of the case is that
the applicant was minor (thirteen years of
age) at the time of alleged incident, as her
date of birth has been shown as 20.07.1988.
The opposite party no. 2, Sri Ram Chandra