2024:UHC:8888
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 864 of 2024
………..
Mohammad Yaseen Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand ………..Respondent
Presence:-
Mr. Mehboob Rahi and Mr. R K Rawat Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General along with Ms.
Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder for the State
Dated : 29.11.2024
Hon’ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
Present petition is filed by the petitioner to
stay the further proceedings of
summoning/cognizance order dated 19.01.2024
passed by Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Kichha,
District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.
308 of 2024 under Section 3/5/11(1) of the
Uttarakhand Cow Progeny Act, 2007 as well as the
further proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.
2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit
that an F.I.R. is registered under the Uttarakhand
Cow Progeny Act, 2007; the proceeding of the entire
criminal case is unsustainable in the eyes of law as
no case is made out against the petitioner/accused
under the Uttarakhand Cow Progeny Act, 2007; that,
there is no FSL report which suggest that the alleged
meat is cow meat/flesh; that; there is no independent
witness of the recovery of alleged meat/flesh.
He would further that the petitioner is not
named in the First Information Report and the name
1
2024:UHC:8888
of the petitioner/accused came into light on the
statement of the co-accused, which was given by the
co-accused during the investigation, therefore, entire
criminal proceedings should be stayed as the trial
court without considering the facts of the case has
issued summoning order against the
petitioner/accused.
3. State counsel vehemently opposed the
contents of the present petition on the ground that
against the summoning order, petitioner/accused
has an equally efficacious remedy of filing revision
before the concerned Sessions Court but the
petitioner/accused straightaway approached this
Court; that, the grounds taken in the petition are
matter of evidence, which can be appreciated by the
trial court only and not by this Court in its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S., therefore,
the petitioner/accused is not entitled for any relief at
this stage.
4. To this, counsel for the petitioner/accused
seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail his
opportunity to argue on all the points raised in the
petition at the time of arguments on framing of the
charges, if not framed, or at the stage of the revision,
as the case may be.
5. In view of above, present petition is
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as above.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
29.11.2024
MA
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
Mamta DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=9f3ef5e40c7881302fc
MTA
da45af446d3419e6d6e990fbd2
5a59bdb957bba484d0d,
postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=5DE1751A4F1D
9CABFD54852C9E68911CA8B6
RANI
6DD26690A191648AB5D8DD0
04EF0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2024.12.03 12:35:11
+05'30'
2
2024:UHC:8888
3