# Sudha Matanheliya Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 765 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-02-23 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2023 - **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sudha-matanheliya-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49827 - **Pages:** 2 ## 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 3 All. Sudha Matanheliya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 765 (2023) 3 ILRA 765 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 23.02.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2023 Sudha Matanheliya ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Revisionist: Nagendra Mohan Singh, Pradeep Kumar Sen Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Sections 156 (3) & 397)-A proposed accused in an application under Section 156 (3) has got no right to be heard either on the application before the Magistrate or in revision before the revisional courtAccused 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) prior to his summoning-If the Magistrate has allowed an application under Section 156 (3) directing the police to register FIR and investigate, revision against such order is not maintainable under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Revision not maintainable and accordingly dismissed. (E-15) List of Cases cited: 1. Union of India Vs WIN Chaddha 1993 SCC (Criminal) 1171. 2. Father Thomas Vs St. of U.P. 2011 (72) ACC 564 (Allahabad) (Full Bench) (Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has sought following prayer:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside 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 whereby application moved by the complainant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been allowed. 3. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the 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 is erroneous and beyond jurisdiction of learned Magistrate. The application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the complainant with ulterior motive. The dispute relates to the landed property and the order passed by the learned Magistrate for registration of FIR and to investigate the matter is against the principles of law. 4. Mr. S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that this revision is not maintainable against the order of allowing application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as the proposed accused has no 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