At the stage of cognizance, the court should consider the material collected during the investigation and not act like the investigating agency or exercise powers like an appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 27.11.2019, passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, in Gomia P.S. Case No. 116 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 986 of 2014, whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 379, 295, 295(A), 429/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act has been taken against the petitioners, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat.

4. The prosecution case is based on the written report of informant Pradeep Kumar Shahi, A.S.I. Tenughat O.P. He got information that Lotha @ Imtiyaz Ansari named accused in Gomia P.S. Case No. 113 of 2014 was seen going towards village Naina Tand. On this he along with other police force reached at Sadam at 12.30. When he was chased by them he entered into a house situated at Dalal Tola, Sadam and police also entered into the house the informant and saw that one person was cutting beef and other person was collecting the same and two people were also stand over there. The person who was chased by informant succeeded in fleeing away but the persons were present into the house were asked their name and address by the informant then they disclosed their name and address as mentioned in the FIR. They further disclosed that Niyaj Ansari and Jamir Hussain do sale and purchase of animals and after cutting the animals, the beef is sold. Further on query, Abdul Rauf and Guljar Ansari disclosed that they come over there to purchase the beef sometime. On demand of papers they could not produce the valid papers. Thereafter in presence of two independence witnesses, some parts of body of oxen was seized and seizure list was prepared on which witnesses signed.

On the basis of aforesaid written report, Gomia P.S. Case No. 116 of 2014, under Sections 379, 295, 295(A), 429/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act has been registered.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that no case under Sections 295 and 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been made against the petitioners.

6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

7. The Court has perused the cognizance order, from which, it transpires that the learned Court has looked into the chargesheet and case diary and thereafter came to the conclusion that the offences under those Sections have been made out. This case was investigated by the police and chargesheet was submitted and thereafter the learned Court has taken the cognizance against the petitioners.

8. Reference may be made to the case of “Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P.” reported in (2021) 9 SCC 35, wherein Para-9.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned