2025:UHC:4743 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.947 of 2022 Nadeem --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence: Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for applicant. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 08.03.2022, summoning order dated 28.03.2022 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.325 of 2012 State Vs. Nadeem, pending in the Court of learned Second Additional Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, for the offence punishable under Section 3/6/11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and under Section 11(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR on 18.07.2020 alleging therein that on the very same day, the complainant received information from Mukhbir that in front of house of applicant, in two vehicles, one cow and an ox were kept, to which the applicant and his companions were going to sell for slaughtering; on this information, the police raided the said place, from where Naushad and Pramindra were arrested and on interrogation, they confessed that they were going to sell the said cow progeny for slaughtering and also disclosed the involvement of the applicant in the crime. 1 2025:UHC:4743 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not arrested at the spot and has been implicated only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of the co-accused persons, who were arrested at the spot. 5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the offence under Section 6 of the Act is not made out against the applicant as the applicant was not transporting the cow progeny out of the State. It is also contended by him that the offence under Section 3 of the Act is also not made out against the applicant for the reason that there is nothing on record that cow progeny was being taken for slaughtering. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except the alleged statement of co-accused there is no other evidence against the applicant and further the applicant was not arrested at the spot and there is no recovery from the possession of the applicant. Althogh, the place of incident was a heavily crowded place but even there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery, which also creates serious doubt over prosecution story. He further submits that the impugned summoning order has been passed by the learned court below in a very cursory manner and same is based on surmises and conjectures. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel contends on the basis of its counter affidavit that the name of the applicant-accused has come into light on the basis of statement of co-accused persons and there is no recovery from the applicant and there is no independent witness of recovery. He further submits that on the basis of statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses found cogent and credible evidence 2 2025:UHC:4743 against the applicant, and therefore, Investigation Officer has rightly filed the charge-sheet against the applicant and learned court below after considering the entire material available on record, has rightly taken cognizance against the applicant. He further submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments hold that in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court will not enter into any finding of facts or hold a parallel trial. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that as to whether the provisions under Sections 3 and 6 of the Act would be made out or not against the applicant is dependent upon the evidences adduced during trial. This Court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not armoring with to dissect the disputed question of facts as alleged. Therefore, no force is made out in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. In order to make out a case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant has to satisfy the Court that even if the entirety of the case of the prosecution has taken as true, no case is made out. But, here this is not a case, therefore, this Court doesn’t incline to interfere into the matter. 9. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed. 10. Interim order dated 28.06.2022 stands vacated. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.06.2025 PN 3 PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331b ac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064 498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.06.13 15:09:57 +05'30'