Karnataka High Court quashes cow-theft FIR filed two years later on complainant’s uncertain identification

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1–4, challenged FIR in Crime No. 47/2026 registered by M.K. Doddi Police Station under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The complainant alleged that two of his cows went missing while grazing on 18 August 2024.

Nearly two years later, on 25 March 2026, he allegedly saw a cow resembling one of his missing cows and, based on information received from persons in the village, suspected that the petitioners had stolen and dealt with the two animals.

The FIR was registered on 26 March 2026.

The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed after an unexplained delay, that the complainant could not reliably identify the cattle as his own, and that there was no material connecting them with the alleged theft.

The complainant and the State opposed quashing, arguing that the investigation should be permitted to continue.

Whether the FIR registered under Section 303(2) of the BNS disclosed the essential ingredients of the offence of theft against the petitioners.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, in view of the unexplained two-year delay, uncertain identification of the cattle, and absence of preliminary verification or connecting material, would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.

The Court applied Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which penalises theft, requiring allegations and material capable of disclosing the constituent elements of that offence.

It also applied the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, invoked in the petition under Section 528 BNSS, to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

The Court held that criminal investigation cannot be sustained on mere suspicion, conjecture, or inherently improbable allegations unsupported by objective verification or material connecting the accused with the alleged offence.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the complaint was lodged approximately twenty-four months after the alleged disappearance of the cows, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The complainant’s assertion that the cattle seen in March 2026 were the same animals that had gone missing in August 2024 was based essentially on resemblance and subsequent hearsay information, with no reliable distinguishing features or ownership material identified.

The complaint also did not disclose objective material showing that the petitioners had taken, possessed, sold, or otherwise dealt with the cows.

The investigating agency had registered the FIR without first verifying the alleged identification, the circumstances of disappearance, or the connection of the petitioners to the occurrence.

Since the allegations did not disclose even the basic ingredients of theft under Section 303(2) BNS, allowing the investigation to continue would permit suspicion to be converted into a criminal prosecution and would constitute an abuse of process.

It held that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 303(2) BNS and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The criminal petition was accordingly allowed, and the FIR in Crime No. 47/2026 registered by M.K. Doddi Police Station against petitioners/accused Nos. 1–4 was quashed.