IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14185 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

FAIZAL AHMED @ KADRULI FAIZAL @ MANDI FAIL @ PANCH S/O B. HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT: NO.8-10-782/2, MUBEENA MANZIL, AL AMEEN NAGAR, KARBABALA CROSS ROAD, KUDROLI, KODIYALBAIL, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 003.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by BY BAJPE POLICE STATION, LAKSHMI T Location: REP. BY SPP, High Court HIGH COURT BUILDING, of Karnataka BANGALORE-560 001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)

PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CC.NO.1491/2025, ON THE FILE OF JMFC (VI) COURT, MANGALORE, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 303(2), 341(3), 111(2)(b), 111(4) R/W 3(5) OF BNS, U/S 177 OF I.M.V ACT, U/S 4, 5, 12 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER AND CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, REGISTERED BY BAJPE P.S., WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record.

2. Petitioner is seeking to quash the entire proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.1491/2025, on the file of the JMFC (VI) Court, Mangaluru, D.K., registered for the offence punishable under Section 303(2), 341(3), 111(2)(b), 111(4) r/w 3(5) of BNS, 2023, Section 4, 5 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act and Section 177 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

3. It is the case of prosecution that accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 have slaughtered 9 cows in the house of accused No.3 and they transported the meat in a Bolero vehicle, affixing fake number plates, for selling the meat to accused No.5, petitioner herein.

4. Initially, accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended while they were transporting the meat in a Bolero vehicle. The vehicle as well as the meat were seized. It is seen that on the voluntary statement of the said accused, the Police have chargesheeted the petitioner arraigning him as accused No.5.

5. Firstly, it is to be noticed that except the voluntary statement of the co-accused, there is no material placed on record to show that the meat was being transported in the vehicle as per the instruction of the petitioner or it was meant to be sold to him. Even otherwise, it is not the case of prosecution that the meat was purchased by the petitioner or that the meat was seized from his possession. Unless sufficient materials are placed by the prosecution to show that the petitioner has purchased the meat from other accused or he has instructed them to slaughter the cows, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner are made out. In the chargesheet, it is specifically stated that it was accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 who have slaughtered the cows in the house of accused No.3. Hence, the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence reported in (2018) 8 SCC 271, wherein, the Apex Court has held at Para 14 as under:

"14. In the present case it is accepted that apart from the aforesaid statements of co-accused there is no material suggesting involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. We are thus left with only one piece of material that is the confessional statements of the co-accused as stated above. On the touchstone of law laid down by this Court such a confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co- accused and can at best be used or utilized in order t