Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner Shiv Prakash challenging the order dated 25.2.2011passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh Camp Gharsana whereby the learned Revisional Court upheld the order dated 1.10.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 9 of the Bovine Animal Act.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Ram Niwas submitted a First Information Report against the petitioner at the Police Station Rawla on 23.8.2009. It was alleged in the report that the petitioner caused burn injuries to a stray bull on 21.8.2009. The first informant was informed about the incident by Bhanwarlal over telephone. Mohanlal, Bhanwarlal and Ranjit were alleged to be eye witness of the occurrence. The first informant reached the place of occurrence and verified the information given by Bhanwarlal and thereafter filed the report at P.S. Rawla.

3. The Investigation Agency initiated investigation and ultimately filed a negative final report in the matter. It was concluded in the investigation that Shiv Prakash was having an agricultural field in the village 4 K.L.M. Ganga Ram, was his agriculturist who used to live in a Dhani constructed in the field. Ganga Ram's cow was in heat. A stray bull entered into the field and was pestering the cow for about two days and was not leaving the field. Ganga Ram was trying to force the bull out of his field but could not succeed on which he and his brother Kalu Ram built a torch by tying a rubber tube to a Lachi and lit it for the purpose of scaring the bull away. A few drops of burning rubber fell on bull causing minor burns to it. Shiv Prakash was not responsible for the incident. It was also found that no significant harm was caused to bull. The first informant and Shiv Prakash were inimical to each other owing to political rivalry and thus a belated F.I.R. was filed as a personal vendetta.

4. The first informant and Bhanwarlal filed a protest petition against the final report. The learned trial judge accepted the protest petition and took cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance in revision and the revisional Court too upheld the same. Hence, this miscellaneous petition.

5. Mr. M.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner is absolutely illegal and amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the Court. He submitted that the bull forced its way into the petitioner's field and was pestering petitioner's agriculturist Ganga Ram's cow. On this he tried to scare the bull away by a burning rubber tube and in this process, a few minor superficial burns were caused to the bull because of drops falling from the burning rubber. Learned counsel referred to the statements of Ranjit, Vinod Kumar, Prakash and Devilal recorded during investigation who all stated that the incident took place when Ganga Ram and Kalu Ram tried to scare the bull away from the agricultural field with a burning rubber tube tied to a stick. The I.O. concluded that no harm was intended in the act. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge did not even refer to the material collected by the Investigation Agency and mechanically took cognizance against the petitioner. He thus prayed that the order taking cognizance is absolutely illegal and deserves to be quashed.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 urged that the first informant and the witness viz. Bhanwarlal etc. have clearly implicated the petitioner as the person who caused the burns to the bull. He thus urged that the order taking cognizance does not call for any interference.

7. Heard and considered the submissions adva

Click Here to Read the rest of this document