A prima facie case warrants trial; disputed facts cannot be resolved in quashing proceedings.

Following information about alleged cow slaughter, a Kapu Police Station raid team went to the reported location and saw two persons slaughtering a cow.

They fled; the raid leader identified the petitioner as one of them.

At the scene, the police found a motorcycle, from which they seized a photocopy of the petitioner’s driving licence and the motorcycle’s registration documents.

They also seized two cow heads, about 200 kilograms of beef in gunny bags, and slaughtering equipment.

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 4, 5, 7 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act, 2020, and Section 379 IPC.

The Magistrate took cognizance in C.C. No. 1146/2023.

The petitioner sought to quash the cognizance order and proceedings, arguing, among other things, that there was no complainant for the theft offence, that the persons investigating the statutory offences lacked authority, and that he had been falsely implicated.

1. Whether the charge sheet and cognizance order disclosed grounds to quash the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process, including on the petitioner’s objections to the theft allegation and the authority of the persons involved in the investigation.

2. Whether the petitioner’s disputed claims concerning his connection to the incident and the seized motorcycle and documents could be resolved in the quashing proceedings, without a trial.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the cognizance order and proceedings.

The alleged offences arose under Section 379 IPC and Sections 4, 5, 7 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Prevention Act, 2020.

The Court applied Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, under which official acts may be presumed to have been regularly performed, subject to rebuttal.

It also held that disputed factual questions should not be determined through a mini-trial in writ jurisdiction.

The Court considered the seizure of the petitioner’s licence photocopy and the motorcycle documents at the scene, together with the raid leader’s identification of the petitioner, as material prima facie indicating his presence at the incident.

It observed that the petitioner did not claim that the motorcycle had been seized from his house.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s allegation that the police had falsely implicated him by planting the seized beef to be a matter requiring examination at trial, rather than a basis for quashing the case at this stage.

Applying the rebuttable presumption under Section 114(e) and declining to conduct a mini-trial, the Court found sufficient material for the petitioner to face trial.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1146/2023 to continue.