Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36578 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27057 of 2024 Applicant :- Lalu Joshi @ Lalu Ram And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajatshatru Singh,Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA representing the State, and also perused the material on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 09.09.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Attarra, District Banda in Case No. 565 of 2013, titled State v. Ram Bhawan Pal & Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2013, registered under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Police Station Fatehganj, District Banda and entire criminal proceedings arising of the said case. 3. The prosecution's case is that on 06.05.2013, a FIR was lodged alleging that the applicants had killed a peacock- an endangered species listed in Schedule-I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and has issued threats to the informant to deter him from reporting the matter to the police. The FIR was registered under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to "Act"). 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegations in the FIR are false and baseless. It is contended that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The cornerstone of the applicants' defense rests on the postmortem report of the peacock, which concludes that the cause of death was "due to loss of water," and no external or internal injuries detected. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer, without conducting a proper and impartial investigation as mandated under the Act, submitted a charge sheet against the applicants. Further, it is argued that the learned Magistrate, without appreciating the material contradictions and the medical evidence on record, erroneously took cognizance and issued summons, thereby abusing the process of law. 5. In response, the learned AGA opposed the application, supporting the order of the learned Magistrate and the charge sheet, contending that the same was filed after due investigation and that a prima facie case has been made out under relevant provision of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and examined the case record, this Court finds merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants. A plain reading of Section 9 of the Act prohibits the hunting of any wild animal specified in Schedules I to IV. The peacock, being listed under Schedule I, is granted protection under the Act. Section 51 provides for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Act. 7. However, in the present case, the crucial piece of evidence- the postmortem report- clearly states that the cause of death of the peacock was "due to loss of water," and no injury, either external or internal, was detected. In the absence of any forensic or corroborative material suggesting direct or circumstantial involvement of the applicants in the killing, the essential ingredients required to attract the offence under Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Act are not thus satisfied. 8. It is well settled that police authorities, while investigating offences must aim at ascertaining the truth rather than merely supporting the narrative of the complainant. The mechanical filing of a charge sheet without substantive evidence undermines the rule of law and burdens the judicial system unnecessarily. 9. The learned Magistrate appears to have mechanically issued process against the applicants without judiciously applying mind to the medical evidence, which forms the bedrock of the case. The absence of any nexus between the applicants and the alleged act of killing the protected species renders the prosecution untenable. 10. In light of the foregoing discussion and considering the lack of material evidence to establish the offence under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the continuation of proceedings against the applicants would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Attarra, District Banda in Case No. 565 of 2013, State v. Ram Bhawan Pal & Ors, as well as the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2013, under Section 9/51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Police Station Fatehganj, District Banda, are hereby quashed. 12. The present application is allowed. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Prajapati Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad