- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:953 CRL.P No. 14189 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14189 OF 2025 BETWEEN: FAIZAL AHMED S/O B. HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/ATNO.8-10-782/2, MUBEENA MANZIL AL AMEEN NAGAR, KARBABALA CROSS ROAD, KUDROLI, KODIYALBAIL, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 003 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:953 CRL.P No. 14189 of 2025 AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAJPE POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CC NO.1032/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC (VI) COURT, MANGALORE D.K FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 303(2) OF BNS SECTIONS 4, 5, 12 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER AND CATTLE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ACT OF BAJPE POLICE STATION WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:953 CRL.P No. 14189 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1032/2025 registered for offences punishable Sections 303(2) of the BNS and under Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Ordinance Act. 2. Heard Sri. Lethif B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl.SPP appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. 3. A complaint comes to be registered on 26.12.2024 that around 6:30 a.m., they found transportation of cows and when questioned, it was informed that they have committed theft of four cows and have purchased a stolen calf. This leads to the apprehending of those persons, who were found in possession of the cows. 4. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, who was arrayed as accused No.3, was drawn into the web of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:953 CRL.P No. 14189 of 2025 proceedings on a confession statement made by accused Nos.1 and 2. Another crime was registered on the same ground against the same petitioner arraigning him as accused No.3, which had become the subject matter of Criminal Petition No.14185/2025. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the following order quashes the proceedings against the present petitioner on the score that he had been drawn into the web of proceedings only on the confession statement of the co- accused. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.14185/2025 dated 29.10.2025, had held as follows: "2. Petitioner is seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.1491/2025, on the file of the JMFC (VI) Court, Mangaluru, D.K., registered for the offence punishable under Section 303(2), 341(3), 111(2)(b), 111(4) r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023, Section 4, 5 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act and Section 177 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. 3. It is the case of prosecution that accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 have slaughtered 9 cows in the house of accused No.3 and they transported the meat in a Bolero vehicle, affixing fake number plates, for selling the meat to accused No.5, petitioner herein. 4. Initially, accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended while they were transporting the meat in a Bolero vehicle. The vehicle as well as the meat were seized. It is seen that on the voluntary statement of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:953 CRL.P No. 14189 of 2025 said accused, the Police have chargesheeted the petitioner arraigning him as accused No.5. 5. Firstly, it is to be noticed that except the voluntary statement of the co-accused, there is no material placed on record to show that the meat was being transported in the vehicle as per the instruction of the petitioner or it was meant to be sold to him. Even otherwise, it is not the case of prosecution that the meat was purchased by the petitioner or that the meat was seized from his possession. Unless sufficient materials are placed by the prosecution to show that the petitioner has purchased the meat from other accused or he has instructed them to slaughter the cows, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner are made out. In the chargesheet, it is specifically stated that it was accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 who have slaughtered the cows in the house of accused No.3. Hence, the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence reported in (2018) 8 SCC 271, wherein, the Apex Court has held at Para 14 as under: "14. In the present case it is accepted that apart from the aforesaid statements of co-accused there is no material suggesting involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. We are thus left with only one piece of material that is the confessional statements of the co- accused as stated above. On the touchstone of law laid down by this Court such a confessional statement of a co- accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co- accused and can at best be used or utilized in order to lend assurance to the Court. In the absence of any substantive evidence it would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the statements of co-accused. The appellant is therefore entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the orders of conviction and sentence and acquit the appellant. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:953 CRL.P No. 14189 of 2025 appellant shall be released forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other offence." 7. Even in the present case except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no other material against the petitioner to substantiate his role in the commission of the offence. Petition succeeds. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings as against petitioner/accused No.5 in C.C.No.1491/2025 pending on the file of JMFC-VI Court, Mangaluru, D. K. are quashed. iii) I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of." 6. The finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court would undoubtedly become applicable to the facts obtaining in the case at hand. Therefore, notwithstanding the vehement opposition of the learned Addl.SPP, I deem it appropriate to follow what the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held concerning the very same parties and obliterate proceedings against the petitioner, as the situation in the case at hand is identical to what sprang before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:953 CRL.P No. 14189 of 2025 (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1032/2025 pending before the JMFC (VI) Court, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, qua the petitioner stand quashed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2