The court's decision was based on the application of principles governing the quashing of FIRs, emphasizing that the power to quash should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioners seeking issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the FIR bearing no. 685/2022 registered at Police Station Jagatpuri, Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 429/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Section 4/7/8/12/13 of Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1994 (`DACP Act') and to transfer the inquiry on the complaints of the petitioners from the Public Grievance Cell, Delhi Police to Vigilance Branch, Delhi Police, or to Anti-Corruption Branch, Directorate of Vigilance, Government of NCT of Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 09.11.2022, an information was received vide DD No. 9A regarding slaughtering of cow, however, when the police had reached the spot i.e. House No. B- 34, Gali No.5, Khureji Khas, Jagatpuri, Delhi-110051, they had found that blood was flowing from inside the above-mentioned house. Upon investigation, it was found that the petitioners herein were cutting and cleaning two animals. Crime team was called at the spot and during investigation, the petitioners informed the police that they had bought two baby buffalos from Ghazipur market and they were cutting them in pieces. When the police had asked them to produce valid license for the same, they could not produce it. During investigation, `sharp iron knives' were also recovered from the possession of petitioners. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against petitioners under Section 429/34 of IPC and Section 4/7/8/12/13 of DACP Act as they had killed and were selling the meat of animals used for agriculture purposes.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have not violated any law and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is stated that petitioners have valid MCD license to cut and sell buffalo meat at their shop and that they also had valid receipt of purchase of buffalo meat from Ghazipur meat market, both of which they had submitted to the concerned police officials. It is also stated that during the raid at the shop of petitioners, buffalo skin, bone or dung could not be found to substantiate the allegations leveled in the FIR and, therefore, there is nothing incriminating on record for them to face trial.

It is also stated that they are running their butcher shop in the area for the past 20 years and though there are several CCTV cameras installed near the petitioners. shop, there is no evidence to support the prosecution's case. It is stated that as per schedule of the DACP Act, only cows of all ages, calves of cows of all ages, bulls and bullocks have been included in the definition of agricultural cattle, and buffalo has been excluded from this category, and thus, petitioners are not liable to face any action under the said Act. It is also stated that the petitioners had filed a complaint against the police officials concerned and an inquiry had been conducted wherein conduct of two police officials was found suspicious in the present case, and they were accordingly transferred as they could influence or threaten the accused persons in the present case.

4. Learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, submits that the case is pending trial and is fixed for arguments on charge before the learned Trial Court. It is stated that the arguments raised before this Court are all probable defence of the accused. It is further stated the petitioners were found cutting animals inside their residence and not at the shop, and that the distance between the two is about 700-800 meters. It is stated that petitioners do not have any licence for cutting animals at their residence and, therefore, there are no grounds to quash the present FIR.

5. This Court has heard arguments on behalf of both parties and has perused the case file.

6. As the petitioner has