Anshay Singla vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 19.12.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 06.01.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Gautam Budh Nagar as well as quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 52 of 2025 (State vs. Jameel & others) under Section 325 of BNS and under Section 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, 1956 & 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, pending in court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

It is the case of the applicant that his name has been surfaced over the statement recorded by first informant but at the same time, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that while registration of FIR by the first informant himself, name of the applicant has not been implicated when the case has been registered at Case Crime no. 524 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that basis of implication of the applicant as submitted by first informant that it is the applicant who is the owner of vehicle no. HR38AF5307 as open body goods carrier (HGV). No other allegation has been put forward against the applicant and as such at the time of preferring report under Section 193 BNSS, it is the applicant who has been implicated in pursuance to Section 325 of BNS, Section 3, 5 and 8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act along with Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, whereupon, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar took cognizance on dated 06.01.2025 which rises cause of action in favour of the applicant for challenging entire proceeding arising out of Case Crime no. 524 of 2024. 4. While raising arguments for challenging the entire proceedings, learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the epigenis of the matter has not been put under challenge since the name of the applicant was not available at the time of registration of FIR. As and when the matter has been brought to the knowledge of the applicant in shape of proceedings culminated into arrest of the applicant, thereafter he has been granted bail by learned court below on dated 14.11.2024 itself and after releasing from jail when the entire matter has been inquired, the instant application has been preferred for challenging the entire proceeding which is illegally instituted against the applicant.

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that the vehicle in question although registered against Om Sai Corporation who is a proprietorship firm and the proprietor is father of the applicant and as such it is the applicant who is a necessary accused to be implicated since his truck in involved in the illegal activity which culminated into preferring FIR and after conduction of the detailed investigation by concerned Investigating Officer, charge-sheet has been preferred under sections Section 325 of BNS, Section 3, 5 and 8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act along with Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act.

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, learned counsel for the applicant sought the attention of the Court over the registration certificate of vehicle no. HR38AF5307 which is a goods carrier (HGV) open body truck manufactured by Tata Motors having Chasis no. MAT8430150UE09915 and is registered against Om Sai Corporation and by bare perusal of the GST registration certificate, it is crystal clear that Om Sai Corporation is a proprietorship firm and the proprietor of said corporation is one Mr. Ajay Singla. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is son of Ajay Singla but he is nowhere concerned about any activity of the Om Sai Corporation since the same has been continued and constituted as proprietorship firm and the proprietor of Om Sai Corporation is his father and as such information received by Investigating Officer through first informant that the vehicle in question belongs to applicant is contrary to the facts which has been substantiated with proper documents appended through the affidavit in support of the application.

In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, implication of the applicant only on the statement of the first informant

The instant application stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 Shaswat SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad