Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Nishikant Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 15 December, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:37563)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.145 of 2024
------
Dr. Nishikant Dubey, aged about 51 years S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Dubey R/o 18, G.R.G. Road, P.O. and P.S. GRG Road, New Delhi-
110001 ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III
Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA III
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 31.07.2024 along with the F.I.R. of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.281 of 2023 in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 153-B (1) (c), 290, 336, 341, 342, 427, 504, 506, 295 (A), 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Hon'ble Member of Loksabha from Godda Constituency, accosted the informant and his associates, who were taking the bullocks by the side of the road to Banka in the State of Bihar after purchasing the same, from the Mohanpur Hat situated in the District of Deoghar in the State 1 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) of Jharkhand and the petitioner called the informant to be a 'Bangadeshi Pashu Tashkar' meaning 'Bangladeshi Animal Smuggler' and drove away the bullocks causing a loss of Rs.2,38,000/- to the informant and handed over the informant to police of Mohanpur Police Station; but the Mohanpur Police Station, after verification of the address of the informant and finding the receipt and after verifying the receipt in respect of the purchase of bullocks, found the same to be true and released the informant.
4. On the basis of the written-report submitted by the informant, police registered Mohanpur P.S. Case No.281 of 2023 and took up the investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 153-B (1) (c), 290, 336, 341, 342, 427, 504, 506, 295 (A), 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of making or publishing any material regarding any obligation of any class of persons by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community as is likely to cause disharmony or feeling of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons, hence, the offence punishable under Section 153 B (1) (c) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
2 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:37563)
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
7. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of wrongfully restraining anyone, hence, the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
8. So far as the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of wrongfully confining anyone. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
9. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing of doing any act or any illegal omission causing any common injury, danger or annoyance to public or to the people in general and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
10. It is next submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner, with intent to cause or knowing that 3 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person, caused destruction of any property or any change in any property or in the situation thereof, as destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously, the commission of mischief is not made out and in the absence of any mischief having been committed by the petitioner, the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any intentional insult and giving provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
12. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of causing any injury to the person or reputation or property with intent to cause alarm to that person, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.
13. It is then submitted that in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner of outraging the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious belief, the offence punishable under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
4 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:37563)
14. It is further submitted that in the absence of the petitioner making, circulating any statement or report containing rumor or alarming news with intent to create or promote or which is likely to create or promote on grounds of religion, place of birth, residence, language, race or community or any other ground whatsoever, the feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between the religious, racial, language or regional groups; the offence punishable under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
15. It is next submitted that the District Administration of Deoghar, acting at the whims of the incumbent ruling party, is trying to implicate the petitioner maliciously on one pretext or other and the District Administration has tried to rope the petitioner and his family in fourteen (14) different cases, the case numbers and relevant date of which cases have been mentioned in para-28 of the instant Cr.M.P. It is further submitted that the case is a politically motivated one. It is then submitted that admittedly the petitioner being the Hon'ble Member of the Loksabha, has prevented a non-bailable and cognizable offence being committed, punishable under Section 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 and handed over the informant to police but police instead of registering a case and taking up the investigation and taking action against the informant, has in turn erroneously registered a case against the petitioner. 5 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:37563)
16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 2
(b) and 2 (d) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
Section-2 : Definition- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
a. xxxx b. "Bovine animal" means and includes cow, calf, heifer, bull or bullock.
c. xxxx d. 'bullock' means a castrated male above the age of three years belonging to the species of Bovine animals.
Defines respectively "Bovine Animal" and "Bullock"; which definition read together goes to show that the bullock is a bovine animal and Section 4A and 4B of the said Act restricts export of bovine animals from State of Jharkhand to any other State as the word 'export' has been defined in Section 2 (i) of the said Act which reads as under:-
2(i) 'Export' means taking away from State of Jharkhand at any place outside the State of Jharkhand.
It is then submitted that section 4A and 4B of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
Section-4 (A): Restriction on export:-
No person shall export or cause to be exported any bovine animals for the purpose of slaughter either directly or through his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be slaughtered.
Section-4 (B): Permit for export:-
(1) Any person desiring to export any bovine animal shall apply for a permit to such officer, as the State Government may by notification appoint in this behalf, stating the reasons for which they are to be exported and also the number of bovine animals and the name 6 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) of the State to which they are proposed to be exported and shall also file a declaration that it shall not be slaughtered.
(2) The officer appointed under sub-section (1) shall after satisfying himself about the genuineness or otherwise of the request of the application either grant or refuse to grant him a permit for the export of any bovine animal specified in the application.
Provided that an application for the grant of a permit shall not be refused unless the application has been afforded an opportunity of being heard and the reasons for the refusal are recorded. Provided further that the permit shall not be granted for export of any bovine animal to a State where cow slaughter is not banned by law.
Goes to show that Section 4 B of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 provides that any person desiring to export any bovine animal shall apply for a permit to such officer as the State Government may, by notification, appoint in this behalf and the officer appointed shall satisfy himself about the genuineness or otherwise of the request of the application either to grant or to refuse to grant the permit for export and in this case admittedly the informant and his associates did not take any permission from the officer appointed by the State Government for the purpose; in terms of Section 4 B of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 but still in contravention of the said provision of Section 4A and 4B of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 also attempted to export bovine animal; hence the informant is liable to be punished with rigorous imprisonment of not less than six months and fine not less than Rs.1,000/- but which may extend to three years and the fine may extend of Rs.5,000/- and in view of Section 16 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005, the said 7 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) offence committed by the informant, was a cognizable and non-bailable offence but here the State to cover-up the misdeeds of the informant and to persecute the petitioner, has come up with the reply that since a receipt has been issued by a private person namely Rajesh Gupta who was managing a register in Mohanpur Hat; who is not even a Government servant, will amount to the permission for export of bovine animals by an officer as the State Government, by notification appoint, only laid bare the partisan role played by the State for persecuting the petitioner only because he is the Hon'ble Member of Loksabha for a different political party. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
17. Learned GA III appearing for the State on the other hand submits that even though the informant is neither Bangladeshi i.e., nor the citizen of Bangladesh nor the animal smuggler but the word 'Bangladeshi' is a synonymous word for Muslim country, hence, by using the word 'Bangladeshi' the petitioner has hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslim. Therefore, the offences punishable under Section 153 (B) (1) (c) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that all other offences in respect of which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, is also made out against the petitioner.
18. Learned GA III relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Imran Pratapgadhi vs. State of Gujarat & 8 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678 paragraph-42 (iii) of which reads as under:-
"42. Following is the summary of our conclusions:
(i) xxxx
(ii) xxxx
(iii) In case of the offence punishable under Section 196 of the BNS to decide whether the words, either spoken or written or by sign or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, lead to the consequences provided in the Section, the police officer to whom information is furnished will have to read or hear the words written or spoken, and by taking the same as correct, decide whether an offence under Section 196 is made out.
Reading of written words, or hearing spoken words will be necessary to determine whether the contents make out a case of the commission of a cognizable offence. The same is the case with offences punishable under Sections 197, 299 and 302 of BNS. Therefore, to ascertain whether the information received by an officer-in-charge of the police station makes out a cognizable offence, the officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or written words. This act on the part of the police officer will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry which is not permissible under sub-Section (1) of Section 173."
and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has issued the guidelines for the Officer In-charge of Police Stations to first ascertain whether the information received in respect of inter alia the offences punishable under Section 197 of B.N.S.S, 2023 which corresponds to Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code, makes out a cognizable offence, then the officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or written words and this act on the part of the police officer will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry which is not permissible under Section 173 (1) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 9 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:37563)
19. It is further submitted that the officer-in-charge must be cautious about registering of the cases and has to apply their mind. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
20. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the word 'Bangladeshi' cannot be used as a substitute for either Muslim or Muslim country. The learned GA III though has urged upon this Court that even though the petitioner has used the word 'Bangladeshi', the same be treated as he has used the word Muslim country. Such an interpretation is not permissible in law, to be made, to find out the culpability of a person who has not uttered a word, by interpreting some other words he has uttered to mean that the person has uttered the words which suits the prosecution, to make out a case against the petitioners.
21. So far as the offence punishable under Section 153 (B) (1) (c) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offences are as follows:-
(i) The accused read, spoke or made signs or representations either visible or otherwise or made published any imputation.
(ii) The same was concerning the obligations of any class or persons by reason of their being members of religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and
(iii) Such assertion etc. causes or likely to cause disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between such members or others persons.
22. Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the opposite party- State that the informant is neither a 'Bangladeshi' nor 10 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) animal smuggler. 'Bangladeshi' in common parlance means a citizen of a country namely Bangladesh. So, merely calling someone a 'Bangladeshi' or a "Bangladeshi animal smuggler", do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 153 (B) (1) (c) of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of any material to show that the words of the petitioner caused or likely to cause disharmony or feeling of enmity or hatred or ill-will between one class of persons and other persons. It is needless to mention that in this case there is no allegation against the petitioner that the making of any assertion by the petitioner or otherwise any of his conduct caused or likely to cause disharmony or feeling of enmity or hatred or ill will between one class of the persons and the others. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 153 (B) (1) (c) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
23. So far as the offence punishable under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same provides for punishment for public nuisance. Public nuisance has been defined under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
"268. Public nuisance.--A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.
A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage."11 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:37563) A plain reading of Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code makes it abundantly clear that in order to constitute the offence of public nuisance, the essential ingredient is that the accused does any act or illegal omission, which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general, who dwell upon or occupy the property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.
24. Now, coming to the facts of the case; the alleged injury in this case was confined only to the informant. There is no material in the record to show that apart from the informant and the persons accompanying him, anyone else was injured in any manner or any injury was caused to anyone else in any manner by the acts of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence of public nuisance, which has been defined under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out against the petitioner and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
25. So far as the offence punishable under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same provides punishment for the person doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others.
12 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:37563)
26. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of doing any act rashly or so negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others. In the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the offence punishable under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety.
27. So far as the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner under the impression that the informant committed a non-bailable and cognizable offence; handed over the informant to the police. This in the considered opinion of this Court, will not amount to the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
28. So far as the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same provides for punishment of wrongful confinement. The only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner handed over the informant to the police and the police finding the address and receipt for purchase of the bullocks to be genuine, released the informant. So, this, in the considered opinion of this Court, will not amount to any wrongful confinement of any person committed by the petitioner, for which punishment has been provided in Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code.
29. So far as the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same provides for punishment for 13 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) committing mischief causing damage of amount of Rs.50/- or more. 'Mischief' has been defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
425. Mischief.--Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
The plain reading of Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code makes it abundantly clear that in order to constitute the offence of mischief, the accused must commit one of the following:-
(i) causes destruction of any property or
(ii) any such change in any property or
(iii) any such change in the situation of the property so that the same destroys or diminishes its value or its utility or affects it injuriously.
30. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is no allegation against the petitioner of causing any destruction of any property, causing any change in any property, causing any change or situation in any property so as to diminish its value or its utility. Under such circumstances, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the mischief as defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner and in the absence of commission of mischief, the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code is not made 14 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) against the petitioner; even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety.
31. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 has held as under in paragraph Nos.24 and 25:-
"24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] .
25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following:
"... The prosecution must prove:
(i) That the accused threatened some person.
(ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested;
(iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat."
(emphasis supplied) 15 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above."
32. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is no allegation against the petitioner of having intentionally insulted the informant nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of giving any provocation to the informant intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to break public peace or commit any offence and in the absence of any material regarding these essential ingredients, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
33. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has given or gave any threat to the informant rather the only allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner handed over the informant to police of Mohanpur Police Station. There is no allegation against the petitioner that the acts of the petitioner caused alarm to the informant or anyone else nor is there any allegation that the petitioner gave any threat to the informant to cause the informant to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do; as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
16 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:37563)
34. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still neither the offence punishable under Section 504 nor the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.
35. So far as the offence punishable under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same provides for punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
36. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing any act with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feeling of any class rather the allegation against the petitioner is that he only called the informant and another person accompanying him who were admittedly exporting the bovine animals from Jharkhand to State of Bihar without any permission of the officer appointed by the notification by the State Government in terms of Section 4B Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 and handed over the informant to the police of Mohanpur Police Station. It is not the case of the prosecution that apart from the informant and the person accompanying him there was any other alleged victims present at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence. So, by this alleged act of the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner has done anything 17 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) intended to outrage the religious feeling of any class by insulting its religious feeling or religious belief.
37. In the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
38. So far as the offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same provides for punishment for inter alia making statement with intent to create or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups or castes or communities.
39. Now, coming to the facts of the case; there is no aggrieved person in this case except the informant and the person accompanying him. This is not a case where any enmity, hatred or ill-will has been created between two or more classes of people. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still the offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner.
40. So far as the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the admitted case of the informant is that he was 18 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) exporting bovine animals from the State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar which is a cognizable and non-bailable offence is concerned, this Court finds force in such submission. Section 2 (b) read with Section 2
(d) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 brings bullock under the ambit of definition of the bovine animals. Section 4A of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 prohibits export of bovine animals for the purpose of slaughter. Section 4B of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 envisages that person intending to export bovine animals, shall first have to be permitted by such officer as the State Government, may appoint by notification.
41. Now, it is the admitted case of the informant that though he was exporting the bovine animals from Jharkhand to Bihar but the same was being done without permission granted by the officer appointed by the State Government. A receipt granted by one Rajesh Gupta who is not even a Government servant, can by no stretch of imagination be treated as a permission under Section 4A of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the informant has committed the offence, the penalty for which has been provided in Section 12 of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act, 2005 which according to Section 16 of the said act is a non-bailable and cognizable offence.
42. Under such circumstances, it can very well be said that the petitioner handed over to the police a person who was admittedly 19 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024 (2025:JHHC:37563) committing a non-bailable and cognizable offence. But the police instead of instituting the case against the person who has committed the offence, registered the F.I.R. of the offender against the petitioner and after investigation of the case, has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner, as already indicated above; which without any doubt amounts to abuse of process of law; more so, as none of the offences in respect of which charge-sheet has been submitted by the police, as already indicated above, is made out against the petitioner, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, this is a fit case where the charge-sheet dated 31.07.2024 along with the F.I.R. of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.281 of 2023 in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above.
43. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 31.07.2024 along with the F.I.R. of Mohanpur P.S. Case No.281 of 2023 in which charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above.
44. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed.
45. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 25.11.2025, is vacated. 20 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024
(2025:JHHC:37563)
46. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th of December, 2025 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 03/01/2026 21 Cr. M.P. No.145 of 2024