Defective investigation does not preclude prosecution; an accused cannot be discharged solely on this ground if sufficient evidence exists against them.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mayank Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

2. Present application has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 14.8.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / FTC-II, Prayagraj as well as charges framing order dated 12.9.2024 in Session Trial No. 2554 of 2023 (State of U.P. vs. Aamir) arising out of Case Crime No. 372 of 2019, under Section 307 IPC, Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj. Further prayer has been made seeking stay of the aforesaid case.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the first information report of the present case was lodged on 12.12.2019 under Section 307 IPC, Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 as Case Crime No. 372 of 2019 at Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj. It is alleged in the first information report that on 12.12.2019 while the police party was on patrolling duty, they received an information that a truck loaded with bulls is being transported illegally from Chitrakoot to Bihar. On the basis of this information, police party reached at the place of incident, where two persons managed to escape and five persons including the applicant were arrested by the police on spot. It is also alleged in the first information report that the driver of the truck tried to run over the police party but somehow they saved their life. The driver was running the truck at a very high speed and lost control and was apprehended by the police. On interrogation, the arrested persons disclosed their names. The applicant was one of the accused, who was arrested on spot. The names and identities of the escaped persons were disclosed by the spot arrested accused. On inspecting the truck, it was found that the truck was carrying 19 bulls. The truck was seized by the police and a recovery memo was prepared and thereafter the first information report was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused.

4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case. Infact he was not arrested on spot and on 12.12.2019 at 10:50 hours Station House Officer, Ghoorpur, through his CUG number, called the applicant on his mobile to meet him. Subsequently, when the applicant reached Ghoorpur Police Station he was arrested by the police and a false recovery was shown by the police and he was made an accused in the present case and all the allegations are a work of fabrication by the police. The applicant was not arrested on spot as alleged by the police in the first information report dated 12.12.2019. The arrest of the applicant in the present case is against the material on record. At the time of alleged arrest of the applicant, he was accompanied by his Gunner and thereafter the applicant's Gunner was asked by the police to leave the place and in the absence of the Gunner, the applicant was taken into custody.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the investigation was handed over to the Investigating Officer, who did not conduct a fair and impartial investiga