# State of Karnataka, State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, And Raveen Kumar v

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 408
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-16
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No.3634 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-karnataka-state-of-andhra-pradesh-v-m-madhusudhan-rao-and-raveen-kumar-46568
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

FIR lodged under cow slaughter act-over 10kg
meat of calf of cow-sample send to Forensic
lab-till
date
no
chemical
analysis
report
obtained
and
chargesheet
submittedMagistrate
took
cognizance
and
accused
summoned-primafacieFIR

discloses
commission of offence -No interference can be
made at the threshhold.

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,

## Text

408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the company of the accused, so it is not
required on the part of the accused to explain
how the deceased parted from his company. In
other word the burden cannot be shifted on the
accused.

17. Thus to sum up it is clear that the case is
based on circumstantial evidence as no eyewitness
of the incident was there. F.I.R. was lodged after a
delay of 6 days and no plausible explanation of
delay is on the record. The motive of the crime has
not been alleged in the F.I.R., but disclosed in the
statement of PW1 for the first time in the Court
and that too has not been proved. The fact of 'last
seen' has not been established beyond reasonable
doubt. There is no evidence of mixing poison in
the liquor by the accused and to administer the
same to the deceased.

18. More over, the view of the trial court is
possible view. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Achhar Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
reported in (2021) 5 SCC 543, has laid down as
under ( para 16) :-

"16. It is thus a well crystalized principle
that if two views are possible, the High Court
ought not to interfere with the trial Court's
judgment.
However,
such
a
precautionary
principle cannot be overstretched to portray that
the "contours of appeal" against acquittal under
Section 378 CrPC are limited to seeing whether or
not the trial Court's view was impossible. It is
equally well settled that there is no bar on the
High Court's power to re-appreciate evidence in
an appeal against acquittal. This Court has held in
a catena of decisions (including Chandrappa v.
State of Karnataka, State of Andhra Pradesh v.
M. Madhusudhan Rao, And Raveen Kumar v.
State of Himachal Pradesh) that the Cr.P.C does
not differentiate in the power, scope, jurisdiction
or limitation between appeals against judgments of
conviction or acquittal and that the appellate
Court is free to consider on both fact and law,
despite the self-restraint that has been ingrained
into practice while dealing with orders of acquittal
where there is a double presumption of innocence
of the accused".

19. In the light of the above discussions and
the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court referred
above, we do not find any factual or legal error in
the appreciation of evidences by the trial court for
the reasons that there is no direct evidence of the
offence and the chain of circumstantial evidence is
not complete. The motive of the crime has not been
established. There is no evidence of the fact that
accused mixed poison in the liquor of the deceased.
Further more it has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that
accused was thrown away from the roof of Maiku
Yadav in the lane behind the house, but in the
postmortem conducted on the cadaver, no such
injuries were found on the body, which could
establish that the dead body was thrown down from
the roof of the house. There is no trustworthy
evidence of the fact that deceased was 'last seen' in
the company of accused / respondent No.2.

20. There is no reliable and trustwothy
evidence on the record to connect the accused with
the crime. The learned trial court has given cogent
convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing
the order of acquittal.

21. We therefore, do not find any merit in the
appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A408
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 No.3634 of 2021

Imamuddin & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
11 All. Imamuddin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
409
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Vindeshwari Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

FIR lodged under cow slaughter act-over 10kg
meat of calf of cow-sample send to Forensic
lab-till
date
no
chemical
analysis
report
obtained
and
chargesheet
submittedMagistrate
took
cognizance
and
accused
summoned-primafacieFIR

discloses
commission of offence -No interference can be
made at the threshhold.

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

4. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd. Saraful
Haq & anr.;, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283

5. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Mah., AIR 2021 SC 1918

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

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants
as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. This application has been filed by the
applicants with a prayer to quash the entire
criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 525
of 2020, pending in the Court of First Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha/J.P. Nagar
arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2020, under
Section 3/5/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of
Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to
as the "Act, 1955"), Police Station-Amroha
Dehat, District-Amroha/J.P. Nagar as well as
charge sheet dated 10.04.2020, cognizance order
dated 16.05.2020 & summoning order dated
16.05.2020.

3. As per the F.I.R. version, the
prosecution case is as follows :

"नकल फर्द बरामर्गी ग िोंिीय िाल ि
एक र्रात ल हा िा एक छुरी ल हा ि र् रस्सी ि र्
चाकू नाजायज ि एक लकडी का ग टा, ग िोंिीय मीट
ि वगरफ्तारी 05 नफर अवभयुक्त अन्तगदत र्ारा 3/5/8
ग िर् वनिारण अवर्० ि 4/25 िस्त्र अवर्० आज
वर्नाोंक 2.4.20 क मैं उ०वन० सुनील कुमार िमाद मय
उ०वन० लिनीि कुमार मय हे० का० 174 ब्रजलाल
गोंगिार, का० 555 र्नुज, का० 1143 र्ेिेन्द्र, का०
1226 मनर्ीप मय जीप सरकारी नों० UP23G0349
मय चालक हे० का० रामप्रसार् वमश्रा के थाने से
बहिाले रपट नों० 23 समय 9.44 बजे रिाना ह कर
िास्ते गस्त, र्ेिरेि िाक्तन्त व्यिस्था ि लाकडाउन
वडयूटी के अनुपालन के अन्दर इलाका थाना क्षेत्र
मामूर थे जैसे ही हम पुवलस िाले गस्त करते हुए
अम्बरपुर चौराहे पर पहुोंचे त द्वारा मुिवबर िास
सूचना वमली की ग्राम वसरसािुमार में डहर के पास
िेत में कुछ व्यक्तक्त ग िोंिीय पिु का िर् करेगे ि मीट
क ज्यार्ा कीमत पर आवथदक लाभ के वलये बेचेगे।
उनके पास अिैर् िस्त्र भी है। सूचना पर विश्वास कर
मौके से जनता के गिाह फराहम करने का प्रयास
वकया परन्तु क र ना से सम्बक्तन्धत लाकडाउन ह ने के
कारण क ई भी व्यक्तक्त उपलब्ध नहीों ह सका। हम
पुवलस िाल ने आपस में मय मुिवबर के एक र्ूसरे
की जामा तलािी ले र्ेकर विश्वास वकया वक वकसी के
पास क ई अिैर् िस्तु नहीों है ओर मुिवबर क साथ
लेकर जीप क वसरसािुमार बैंक के पास िडी करके
हे० का० चालक क जीप में छ डा गया ओर मुिवबर
क साथ लेकर पैर्ल ईर्गाह िाले रास्ते पर डहर के
ऊपर पोंहुचे त मुिवबर ने बताया वक सामने ज ईि
का िेत है इसी िेत में कुछ व्यक्तक्त ग ोंििीय पिु का
िर् कर रहे है और मुिवबर बता कर चला गया हम
पुवलस िाल ने ईि की आड में छुपते छुपाते िडे
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ह कर र्ेिा त पाोंच व्यक्तक्त मृत ग ोंििीय पिु के मीट
क छुरी ि र्रात से काटकाट कर अलग-अलग वहस्से
बनाकर रि रहे है। एक व्यक्तक्त ने कहा वक नावजम
बछडा त छ टा था वकन्तु मीट अच्छा वनकला है। हम
पुवलस िाल क र्ेिकर ि सुनकर पूणद विश्वास ह गया
वक इन पाोंच व्यक्तक्तय ों में ग िोंिीय बछडे का िर् वकया
है ि पुवलस की वसिलाई अनुसार चार तरफ से
घेराबन्दी कर एक र्म र्विि र्ेकर बागने का मौका न
र्ेते हुए पाोंच व्यक्तक्तय ों क समय करीब 11.00 बजे
मौके पर ही चेतािनी र्ेते हुए पकड वलया। वजनके पास
अलग-अलग पाोंच वहस्स में करीब 10 वकल ग ोंििीय
मीट ि ग िोंिीय िाल ि अििेष ि एक र्रात, एक छुरी
ि एक लकडी का ग टा ि र् रस्सी रक्तरोंवजत पडे है।
वजनका नाम पता पूछते हुए जामा तलािी ली गयी त
पहले ने अपना नाम नईम पुत्र यासीन वनिासी
वसरसािुमार थाना अमर ह र्ेहात जनपर् अमर हा
बताया वजसकी जामा तलािी ली गयी त पहनी पैन्ट के
सुड्डे मे घुरसा एक चाकू नाजायज वजसका बैटा
मछलीनुमा 9 अोंगुल फल र्ारर्ार 8 अोंगुल ि ि लने ि
बोंर् करने के वलये पीतल का िटका लगा है, बरामर्
हुआ। र्ूसरे व्यक्तक्त ने अपना नाम मावजम पुत्र वफर्ा
हुसैन वनिासी वसरसािुमार थाना अमर ह र्ेहात जनपर्
अमर ह बताया वजसकी जामा तलािी ली त पहने
तेहमोंर् के सुड्डे में घुरसा एक चाकू नाजायज वजसका
बैटा मछलीनुमा एल्यूवमवनयम 9 अोंगुल फल र्ारर्ार
करीब 8 अोंगुल ि लने ि बन्द करने के वलये पीतल का
िटका लगा है। तीसरे व्यक्तक्त ने अपना नाम इमामुद्दीन
पुत्र अलीहुसैन वनिासी वसरसािुमार थाना अमर ह
र्ेहात जनपर् अमर हा ि चौथे व्यक्तक्त ने अपना नाम
सरफराज पुत्र इमामुद्दीन वनिासी वसरसािुमार थाना
अमर ह र्ेहात जनपर् अमर हा ि पाोंचिे ने अपना नाम
िाहनिाज पुत्र इमामुद्दीन वनिासी वसरसािुमार थाना
अमर हा र्ेहात जनपर् अमर हा बताया। अवभयुक्तगण ों
से ग िोंिीय िर् ि प्राप्त उपकरण एिों ग ोंििीय मीट ि
अिैर् िस्त्र के सम्बन्ध में पूछा गया त पाोंच माफी
मागने लगे और कहने लगे वक साहब बहुत बडी गलती
ह गयी है। हम पाोंच ने ग िोंिीय बछडे का िर् अपने
आवथदक लाभ के वलये वकया है। ग िोंिीय मीट ज्यार्ा
पैस में हम ल ग बेचते है। मुझ उ०वन० द्वारा पिु
वचवकत्सावर्कारी वबजेन्द्र वसोंह क उनके म ०
7906033880 पर बुलिाकर एक वलक्तित ररप टद र्ी
वजि ने िाल ि मीट क र्ेिकर ग िोंिीय िाल ि मीट
का ह ना बताया ि मौके पर ही मीट नमूना वलया गया ि
ररप टद तैयार की गयी। बरामर्ा िाल ि अििेष क
सोंक्रमण फैलने की आोंिका के कारण वनयमानुसार
गड्डा िुर्िाकर अििेष क जमीन में र्बाया गया ि
मौके से प्राप्त रक्तरोंवजत लकडी का ग टा, छुरी, र्रात,
रस्सी क एक प्लाक्तस्ट्क के सफेर् कट्टे में ि अवभयुक्त
नईम ि नावजम से प्राप्त नाजायज चाकू क अलगअलग कपडे में सील सिे म हर कर नमूना म हर बनाये
गये। अवभयुक्त का यह जुमद र्ारा 3/5/8 ग िर् वनिारण
अवर्० ि र्ारा 4/25 आर्म्द एक्ट का है वजनक उनके
जुमद ि मानिावर्कार आय ग एिों माननीय उच्चतम
न्यायालय के आर्ेि वनर्ेि से अिगत कराते हुए
वहरासत पुवलस में वलया गया। अवभयुक्त सरफाज ने
पुवलस क र्ेिकर मौके से भागने का प्रयास वकया था
वजसक जल्दी में वफसलने के कारण हाथ में मामूली
च ट आ गयी थी। ज हाथ में र्र्द बताता है। फर्द मौके
पर मुझ उ०वन० द्वारा ब लब लकर उ० वन० लिनीि
कुमार के द्वारा वलिायी गयी। फर्द मौके पर पढकर
सुनाकर हमराहीयान की गिाही करायी गयी। फर्द की
एक प्रवत सामुवहक रूप से अवभयुक्त नईम क र्ेकर
सबी के अलामात बनिाये जाते है। वगरफ्तारी की सूचना
थाने जाकर उवचत माध्यम से र्ी जािेगी। ह० अग्रेजी
उ०वन० सुनील कुमार थाना अमर हा र्ेहात जनपर्
अमर हा वर्नाोंक 2.4.2020 , ह० अग्रेजी उ०वन०
लिनीि कुमार, ह० हे०का० 174 ब्रजलाल गोंगिार, ह०
का० 555 र्नुज, ह० का० 1143 र्ेिेन्द्र , ह० का० 1226
मनर्ीप। ह० सरफराज अली ह० अग्रेजी िाहनिाज,
अोंगूठा वनिानी इमामुद्दीन, वन० अोंगूठा नावजम, वन०
अोंगूठा नईमः- मैं सीसी 517 जुगेन्द्र वसोंह प्रमावणत
करता हों वक फर्द की नकल मेरे द्वारा िब्द ि िब्द ब ल
ब लकर कम्प्युटरकमी म०का० 549 बबीता द्वारा टाईप
करायी गयी है।"

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits
that as per the report prepared by the Veterinary
Officer, Government Veterinary Hospital Nanhera
11 All. Imamuddin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
411
Alyarpur, Amroha, 10 kg suspected meat of calf of
cow was found and sample of the same was sent to
the Forensic Lab Mathura for chemical analysis
but till date no chemical analysis report has been
obtained by the Investigating Officer and in the
absence of any chemical analysis report, the
Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet
against all the accused persons and the learned
Magistrate has also taken cognizance in a routine
manner and summoned the applicants for facing
trial.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that
charge sheet was rightly submitted by the
Investigating officer and the cognizance taken by
the learned Magistrate is also in accordance with
law, as from the possession of the applicant the
skin of calf of cow as well as meat and other
material like knife and wooden cutting board used
for cutting the meat were also recovered on the
spot, therefore, prima facie offence under Section
3/5/8 of the Act, 1955 is made out against the
applicants.

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, or offer or
cause to be offered for slaughter-

(a) a cow, or

(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 subsection (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 sub-section (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,
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 beef-products 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
fidepassenger 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
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.
11 All. Imamuddin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
413

(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 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 applicants that no
offence against the applicants is disclosed and
the present prosecution has been instituted with
a malafide intention for the purposes of
harassment has no force.

8. 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, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq & Anr.;,
(Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and (iv) M/s
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918.

9. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex
Court has settled the legal position for quashing
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to
be
applied
by
the
court
is
whether
uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie
establishes the offence and whether chances of
ultimate conviction are 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.

10. 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 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 proceedings, charge sheet as well
as cognizance and summoning order under
Section 3/5/8 of Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955 is refused. There is no merit
in this application filed by the applicants, under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.

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

12. Accordingly, this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A414
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

U/S 482/378/407 . No. 4050 of 2021

Giri Raj Sharma ...Applicant
Versus
U.O.I. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal Krishna

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.S.G.

Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 & 4 -
Cognizance taken against the petitioner on
supplementary
prosecution
complaint-for
offence u/s3 and 4 of Prevention of money
laundering Act, 2002-No ban on exercising of
inherent power where abuse of process of
court or extraordinary situation excites Court's
jurisdiction-E.D. has copy pasted the relevant
portion of charge sheet of the CBI in the
supplementary prosecution complaint-before
taking the cognizance -provision of section 44
(1) (ii) of the Act, 2002 be considered-to
consider further evidence-operation of the
impugned order stayed.

Petition pending. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Krishna Kumar
Pandey (Criminal Appeal No.1852 o 2019 arising out
of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8499 of 2014)

2. Prabhu Chawla Vs St. of Raj.& anr. reported in
(2016) 16 SCC 30

3. Smt. Janata Jha & anr. Vs Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India &
anr. (CRLMC No.114 of 2011 (Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C.))