The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set-a-side/ quash the order passed in Criminal M.P. No. B2O of 2021 in Crime No. 206 ot 2021 dated. 161041202'1 on the file of the Honble Xl Addl Metropolitan Magistrate, at Rajendranagar, Cyberabad. l.A. NO: 2OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in Criminal M.P. No. 82O oI 2021 in Crime No.206 of 2021 dated. 16-04-2021 on the file of the Honble Xl Addl Metropolitan Magistrate, at Rajendranagar, Cyberabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. G SHANTHI, learned counsel representing Sri G L NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI E GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared forthe Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 'l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.V:! UUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETI TION No.443O OF 2O2l ORDER: Thc'prcseLrt cnnrinal petition is filed by thc yrr litioner/.3..l party undcr Sccr.ion 482 ol Cr.P.C., to set aside/quash I t ordcr passed in Criminal MP No.82O of 2021 in Crime No.2O,> of 202 I datcd

16.O4.2O21 on the flle of the learned XI Addit,( 1al Merropolitan Ma gistra I c a t [?a.ie n d rir naqar, C1'berarbad.

2. Hr:ard l\,4rs.(i.Shanthi, learned corrrr,cl representing learned c:ounscl 1or thc petitioner Sri GL Narasirr ha Rao ancl Srt Il.()aneslr, lcrinccl Assistant Public Prosecutor for thc resr>ondt:nt No. I /State. 'l'hough noticc is ordered against the rcspr,t (lcnl No.2, nonc appeared frrr him.

3. TIrc bricl' f.rcrs are that on 76.04.2O,2 i, u,hilc the policc lr,'erl: chet:kin;; r,chit'lt.s at Palanrakula Village, thev nLelccpted DCM trucks bt-aring Nos.AP 2q 1'B 2485, TS 06 UA 88j i an(l TS 0S UA 424:l u,ith tl'ii. loacl of .lb catrlc, being transpont I bclontl limit, u,itltout Drovicirng lootl, rvithout iaking safety measLu es, r.iolating thc rules and tighti-v tr ing them b_v the accused. Accordi Lgly. F IR No.2O6 <tf 2O2I olr thc iilc oi SHO, Sl-ramshabad pS, Cybc-abzrcl has becn registered :rnd thc cirttlc rvere handed over fcr aift: custody to petiticner goshala. Pagc 2 oi4 c

4. During pendency of proceedings, accused No. 10 filed Crl.MP No-820 of 2O2i seeking interim custody of the cattle contending that they are required to eke out his livelihood of agriculture. The trail Court, vide its dockct order dated 16.01.2021 orclered lor release of cattle as prayed lbr io the custody of accused No. 10. The trial Court directed the office to address letters ro the SIIO concerned and lhe pelitioner herein not to cntertain transfer of citse propcrtl and to rcturn r:he cattle Lo the resoondcnr No.2 b.r obtaining stampcd receipt and to hle the saicl receipt into thc trial Court.

5. Aggrievcd by the said order, the petitioner,/3rd perrty filed the present criminal petition contending that thc order of the trlal Court is illegal, improper and incorrect, lhe trial Court failed to understand the by-pass plan of the 2"d respondent to obtain custody of thc cattle, the zrccused are punishable for the offences under Scctron 5 reari u'ith Seclion 1O of Teiangana i)revcnlion on Cow Slaughtering and Ar-rdhrzr Pradesh (Telangana) .,\rnr;nri.ed Act and i 1(1) PCAA and RWtr JO, 56(C) Transport and Animal. Furthcr, the cattle s,erc in safe custody of the petitioner goshala from the dale o[ therr seizure and since the respondent No.2 is in the business of live stock and r,rorks for slaughtcring companies and charges of cruelty and slaughtering are madc against him, giving intelim custodv of the buffalos to the 2nd iespondtsntt:ruses enciani'ci to the lives of the cattlc. The trial Court I Page 3 of -l failed to take inro consideration the violations of Tr: Rufes, 1978, Ccnlral Motor Vehicle (l 1th Amendmen -) Telangana Cou- Slaughter and Animal Prevention 1l Lhe accuscd No 2 n'hilc transporting the buflalos' failed to take into consideration the findings of the Court in State of UP Vs'Mustakeem and othersl' 'T l is not the owner ol the cattle- The 2nd respondent tr' thc tflal Court u'ith reqard [o his occupation obtairl': the trial Court atrci hencc, hc is liable for perjury' L: the petitioner submits tha t it is on record that th -' cusrodian of ther cattle and hence, il is necessarl l before ordering lor release of the cattle but without : on the petitioner, the impugned orde r was passed ' learned counsel for the peliticlner seeks to allow the rsport of Animal Rules, 2015 and t, commrrted bY The trial Court {on'ble Supreme e 2"d respondent misrepresenting I the orders from rrncd counsel for petitioner is the art)' to bc heard rusing any notice Stating thus, the present criminal petition.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prc secutor contends that the petitioner has no role in thc proceedings be[' re the trial Court and that it rs oniv a cus toclian and it cannot qu€rs t on Lhe rele ase of buffalos. He further contcnds tha[ thc trial court I as rightly passed lhe orders by scrupulously examining the material t't fore it and hence' I Crl.A Nos.llSl 187 oi l00f ol Hon'blc Strpreme Coufl ( / I Pase ,l of4 !-r\t the findings cannot be stated to be Derverse. Thus slating, he requcstecl to dismiss the petition.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petilir:ner and learnch Assislant Public Prosecutor ancl upon perr-rsal of the material including thc impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that thc trial Court [hough ha'".ing knowledge that the cattle were kcpt under the care and custod)- of the petitioner, without ordering notice on it, has passed the order and that the trial Court ought to have affcrrded an oppor! uniti oi being heard to the petitioner r,l,hilc p:rssinrl thc impr.rgned orrlcr i: nde r l irese cii-cumstances, this Court decms it appropriate to remand Lh(] nlirtterr L,ack lc; the trial Court lor propcr adjudication. The trial court shall ensure that tho petitioner is affordccl a fair and reasonat.rlc ,rpportr,ir-IitJ' to be heard in accordance u'ith rhe principles of naturai -iustice ancl to dispose of Criminal MP No.82O of 202l ia Crime No.2O6 c.'l )ti))i alresh in accoi-dance wilh lau'.

8. With rhr- :rbove directions the ptes:t.tt crirtinal petition is disposed of. Misccllaneous applica'.ions, ii' anv pending, stands disnrissed ,/TRUE COPYI/ ISMAIL STRAR ,,. ,/ Sd/- Sri MOHD DEPUW REGI 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XIV Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate, cyberabad at Raiendranagar 2. Orie CC to SRI G L NARASIMHA RAO Advocate [OPUCI \ rL

3. Tyg CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for il-r State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies GR p \ & I \ I i I I I HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 t \ .,.,,..' ',. ';.. .'.'.:., (i.. /,: t_- /, ORDER CRLP.No.4430 of 2021 i,:i \,1-t,i 12 ric M . )r.^ i -- )/).ATCl,r * DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETlTltl,N D@h, i I l