Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 190 (UTT)

Aslam Quershi v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-03-11

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. dated 05.11.2019 registered as F.I.R. No. 0503 of 2019, under Sections 3, 6 and 11 of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 (for short the Act) and section 11 of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 2007 , Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar and also for stay of arrest. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3. In this case, an F.I.R. was lodged on 05.11.2019. According to it, on 05.11.2019, upon information having been received, when a house was raided, two persons were arrested along with animals and cutting instruments and one of them ran away. He is the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that no case under section 6 of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 is made out because it is not a case of transportation. There is no independent witness; petitioner has been arrested merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. 5. Section 6 of the Act is as hereunder:- '6. (1) No person shall transport of offer for transport or cause to be transported any such cow progeny, the slaughter whereof is punishable under this Act, from any place within the State to any place outside the State except under a permit, issued by an officer authorized and notified by the State Government in this behalf and in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permit. (2) Competent Authority shall issue the permit on payment of a fee of rupees 500 for every cow progeny under sub-section (1) after satisfying himself of the compliance of the provision of sub-section (3). (3) Permission may be granted only for rearing, protection and promotion of cow progeny under sub-section (1). (4) The form of permit and application thereof and the procedure for disposal of such application shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. (5) The State Government or any Competent Authority authorized by it, for the purpose of satisfying itself, as to the legality or propriety of the action taken under this section, may call for and examine the record of any case and pass such order thereon as he may deem fit.' 6. (5) The State Government or any Competent Authority authorized by it, for the purpose of satisfying itself, as to the legality or propriety of the action taken under this section, may call for and examine the record of any case and pass such order thereon as he may deem fit.' 6. It is not the case in the FIR that the petitioner or co-accused transported or offered for transportation any cow progeny from any place within the State to any place outside the State. So, apparently, there is no case made out under section 6 of the Act, but, there are specific allegations that animals were being treated with cruelty and petitioner and co-accused were trying to kill the cow and when raided, the petitioner ran away. There are specific averments which disclose commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, there is no reason to quash the FIR. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that arrest of the petitioner may be stayed because there is no evidence against him and the case is covered by the judgment of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested without following the guidelines, laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). Therefore, it is argued that a direction may be issued that the petitioner may not be arrested in a routine and mechanical manner. 8. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), while interpreting and making reference to the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertaining to arrest and production of the accused before the Magistrate, the Honble Court observed as under:- '11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically...' 9. Thereafter, from paragraph no. 11.2 to 11.8, Honble Court, in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) issued directions to the Police Officers authorized to make arrest as well as to the Magistrate authorized to order of detention of the accused. 10. Needless to say, Investigating Officer shall abide by the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) before effecting arrest of the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District Haridwar shall ensure it. 11. With the above observation, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.