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.826 of 2019 in Crime No. 572 ot 2019 dated 21812019 on the file of the Honorable lll lvletropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. t.A. NO. 2 0F 2019 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 order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 826 of 2019 in Crime No. 572 of 2019 dated 02.09.2019 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. 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 sRl E GANESH, the Assistant Publi: Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent Nc 2' The Court made the following: ORDER i) ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.S 830 ()F 2019 The present criminal petilion is filed by the petitioner/3'd party under Section 482 of Cr.P.C', to set aside/quash tJle order passed in Criminal MP No.826 of 20 19 in Crime No'572 of 2O 19 dated o2.oa.2o1g on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate C1''berabad at LB Nagar.

2. Heard Mrs.G.Shanthi, leamed counsel representing iearned counsel for thc petitioner Sri GL Narasimha Rao and Sri E.Ci.ane sh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No' 1 /State. Though notice is ordered against the respondent No'2' none appeared for him

3. The brief facts are that on 29 '06 '2019 at about 18'3O hours, while the police were checking vehicles at Uppal X Road' they intercepted DCM truck bearing No'AP 29 TB 2485 with the load of 45 buf[alos without taking safety measures and violating the rules and u,hen questioned, the owner of the truck replied that he purchased the cattle from Jagadevpur market of Siddipet District by duly obtaining panchayat receipt and were transporting them to Amberpet slaughter house. Accordingly, FIR No.572 of 2Ol9 on the hle of SHO' Uppal has 0."., registeid.and the buffalos were handed over for safe custody to o * I t t i : . ! ; I I Page 2 of5 Narayana Asramam, Kamadenu Goshala, Jiyagrda, Hyderabad under letter dated 29 .06.2019.

4. The case has been investigated into anc upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet is laid and thc trial Court took cognizance of the offences with are levelled against the accused and assigned calendar case number vide CC No.454 1 )f 2079. During pendency of proccedings in CC No.4541 of 2019 belt :e the trial Court, accused No.2 hled Crl.MP No.826 of 2Ol9 seeking r rterim custody of 14 buffalos contending that they are required to ekr. rut his livelihood. The trail Court, vide its docket order dated O-)

38.2019, placing reliance on the decision of Sunderbal Ambalal Vs. lS :ate of Gujarathl ordered for release of cattle as prayed for to the cr stody of accused No.2 directing the ar:cused No.2 to execute F( rsonal bond for Rs. 1,0O,O00/- and Rs. i0,0OO/- u.ith one solvent sr ret5r for like sum amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and to f le photographs of the buffalos aiong u,ith negatives in the trial Court The trial Court directed the office to address a letter to the SHO, Ug pal Police Station and Narayana Asramam Gowshala, Jiaguda not to er -ertain transfer of case property bulfalos and to return 14 buffalo calv :s to the accused No.2 by obtaining stamped receipt and to hle the sa 1 receipt into the trial Court. ' zoo:i t I eLo t:rt. t I I I // 1i i:

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the peLitioner/ 3rd party filed the present criminal petition contending that the order of the trial Court is illegal, improper and incorrect, the trial Court failed to understand the by-pass plan of the 2'd accused to obtain custody of the buffalos, the accused are punishable for the offences under Section 5 read with Section 1o of Telangana Prevention on cow Slaughtering and Andhra Pradesh (Telangana) Amended Act and 11(1) PCAA and RWE 50, 56(C) Transport and Animai' Further, the buffalos were in safe custody of the petitioner gowshala from the date of their seizure and since the accused No.2 is in the business of live stock and works as an agent lor slaughtering companies and charges of cruelly and slaughtering are made against him, giving interim custody of the buffatos lo the 2'd accused causes endanger to the lives of the buffalos. Thc trial Court failed lo take into consideration the violations of Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, Central Motor Vehicle (11h Amendment) Rutes, 2O15 and Telangana Cow Slaughter and Animal prevention Act, committed by the accused No.2 while transporting the buffalos. The trial Court failed to take into consideration the hndings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP Vs'Mustakeem and others2. The 2'd accused is not the owner of the buffalos and in-fact' the 1=r accused, who hted another Crl'MP No'827 of 2Ol9 for release 'of j Crl.A.Nos.283-287 of 2002 ot Ilon'ble Supreme Court Page 4 of5 \ remaining buffalos, is the owner totai buffalos. 'I'l e 2Dd accused by misrepresenting the trial Court with regard to his o::upzrtion obtained the orders from the trial Court and hence, he is iable for perjury. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is )n record that the petitioner is the custodian of the buffalos and her L( e, i1_ is necessary party to be heard before ordering for release of the br- llatos but without causing any notice on the petitioner, the impugned ,rder was passed. Stating thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner ,<:cks to allow the present criminal pe tition.

6. Per contra, Iearncd Assistant Public Irr r sccutor contends that the petitioner has no rolc in the proccedings bt f rrc the trtal Court and that it is only a custodian and it canno[ quo:,I on the release of buffalos. He further contends that thc trial Courr Iars rightly passed the orders by scrupulously examining the material lrr lore iL and hence, the hndings cannot be stated to be perverse. lhus stating, he requested to dismiss r he petit ion.

7. Having heard thc learned counsel for I te petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perl r al o[ the material including the impugned order, this Court is of the c() rsidered view that the trial Court though having knowledge thar thr. t uffalos were kept under the qELre and custody o[ the petitioner, rnith,r rt ordering notice on it, has passed the order and that the trial Cr r rt ought to have / Pagc 5 of5 afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner while passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter back to the trial Court for proper adjudication. The trial court shall ensure that the petitioner is afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice and to dispose of Criminal MP No'826 of 2019 in Crime No.572 of 2Ol9 afresh in accordance with law'

8. With the above directions the present criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, stands dismissed. Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at L'B'Nagar' 2. One CC to SRI G L NARASIMHA RAO Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CCs to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR' High Court for the State of Telangana, HYderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies GR,/PSL Ny HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 ORDER CRLP.No.5830 of 2019 -.f; =.,)a I0 2Uifr \, ll\ t='tr :-, ( f- .1 ? .*s I I -,. \\- '. :z' DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION \ b $