Mohd. Abdul Khaliq v. State of UP and Anr
In this case, An FIR was lodged on 02nd November 2019 at the Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki, and according to information received by an informer, Assistant Sub Inspector Dharmendra Kumar Yadav and other police personnel reached Sarasudi Village near the school, and when they reached, they saw a person holding a sack, on seeing the police personnel, that person tried returning, but the police caught him and on searching him, beef of cow progeny was found in the sack.
On interrogation, the said person confessed his name and also said that the applicant was involved in cow slaughtering and was going to Lucknow to sell the same. Though the learned counsel for the applicant submits there is no chemical analysis from a veterinary doctor, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant, wherein the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance and has summoned the applicant to face trial. The counsel for applicants applied for an application to quash the proceedings against the applicant by invoking the inherent powers of the High Court (Sec. 482 of CrPC)
Issue: Whether a prima facie case is made out against the applicants under Sec. 3, 5, and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Cow Slaughter Act,1955 for the High Court to quash the proceedings by exercising its inherent powers under Sec.482 of CrPC?
Rule: Sec. 3 of the Act of 1955 prohibits cow slaughter, no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow or a bull, unless he has obtained a certificate from the competent authority that the respective animal is fit for slaughter in any place in Uttar Pradesh.
Sec. 5 prohibits the sale of beef, transport, or offer for sale or cause to be sold beef or beef products in any form except for such medicinal purposes as may be prescribed. According to Sec.8, whosoever contravenes or attempts to contravene sections 3 and 5 shall be guilty of an offense punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 3 years but which may extend up to 10 years and with a fine which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and which may extend to five lakh rupees. The applicant also invoked Sec.482 of the Cr. P.C. which is a saving provision for the inherent powers of the High Court.
Application: Having analyzed the above-mentioned provisions of the Act of 1955 and the Cr. P.C., the contention of the counsel for applicants that no offense against the applicant had been committed and that the prosecution instituted the charge with a malafide intention for harassment, stands no force.
Living in a secular nation, it is important to have respect for all religions and in Hinduism, the belief and faith is that the cow is a representative of divine and natural beneficence and should thereby be protected and venerated. Various ancient Hindu texts call attention to and accentuate the importance of cows and the ghastly consequences of slaughtering cows.
From the perusal of materials on record and looking into the facts of the present case, it does not appear that no offense had been made out against the applicant. The court further relied upon various Apex Court rulings, wherein it was a settled legal position to quash the proceedings at an initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is whether an allegation as made is prima facie, whether it establishes the offense, whether the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak, and whether any useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continued.
The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C itself envisages three major circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-
- to give effect to an order under Cr. P.C,
- to prevent abuse of the process of the Court ;
- to otherwise secure ends of justice.
The power conferred upon the High Courts is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings, in this case, cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses the prima facie commission of an offense.
Conclusion: Given the aforesaid submissions that were made by the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above, this case is a matter wherein prima facie offence was clearly established and there was no necessity for the counsel for applicants to approach the High Court under the guise of Sec.482 of Cr. P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. The High Court also found no merit in the current application and the same was dismissed.
 Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
 No person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter a cow, bull, or bullock in any place in Uttar Pradesh; anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding
 (1) 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.
(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 offense punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years and which may be extended 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 offense under this Act is again guilty of an offense under this Act, shall be punished with double the punishment provided for the said offense for the second conviction.
The names and the photograph of the person accused of contravention of the provision of Section 5-A shall be published at some prominent place in the locality where the accused ordinarily resides or in a public place if he conceals himself from the law enforcement officers.
 (a)R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C.866 (b)State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426 (c)State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 (d) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another,(Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.
(a)R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C.866 (b)State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426 (c)State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192 (d) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another,(Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.