ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITIO N No

Petition under Section 482 ot 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 proceedings dispatch orders vide dis. NO.874 of 2021 Dt. 1911112021 passed in Criminal M.P.No.542 of 2021 in Crime No. 507 of 2021 on the file of the the lV METRO PALtTo \t MAGTSTRATE AT RANGAREDDY DIST. lA. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C pr.aying th a in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petit < n, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file quar;i aggrieved the orders pleased to passed in Criminal M.P.No. 542 of 2O21 in Cri ne No. 507 of 2021 on the file of the (iv metropolitan magistrate at rangareddy d r t) This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusin I the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing tf- ) arguments of Mr. BHOOPATHT RANJITH KUMAR, Advocate for the F etitioner and Mr. E. GANESH, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on beh rlf of the Respondent No.1 and G. YELTAM GOUD, representing MR. plpAtAH PEDDAKALA Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the followirrg: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.8772 OF 2O2L ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short' 'Cr'P'C'') by the petitioner seeking to quash the dispatch orders vide dis'No'874 of 2021, d.ated, 1g.11.2021 passed in Criminal M'P'No'542 of 2O2l in CrimeNo.507of2o2|onthefileofthelVMetropolitanMagistrate Ranga ReddY District.

2. Heard Sri Bhoopathi Ranjith Kumar' learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No'l-State and Sri G Yellam Goud' learned counsel representing Papaiah Peddakala' learned counsel appearing for respondent No'2' Perused the record'

3.BrieffactsofthecasearethatacornplaintislrledbySriG. Srinivas PC 6142 of Police Station Ghatkesar' stating that on lt.Og -2O2I at 21:OO hrs, he along with Driver HG 2283 Harikanttr were performing Patrol mobile- 1 duties' On 12 'O9 '2021' at about O3:1O hrs, they received a dial 1OO call ttrat some persons stopped one lorry at Yamnampet X Roads, whrich is transporting tLle animals in cruel manner, immediately, they rushed to there and found one lorry Br.No: KA-5g-25g6 and four persons On enquirY 1 \ 2 they revealed their names as 1) M. pavan Kalyar.r CH. Vamshi S/o Vishnu Raj, 3) Koti Mayuresh 57r Vamshi Krishna S/o Gopal, who stopped the said dial 100 call. Later, the complainant checked th,: found that the vehicle was carrying 2g Oxen and C{ and total 36 cattle tied in highly cruel manner witl,] r water, air, light and found 4 persons in sa i questioning them, they revealed their name as A_1) ( S/o Guruvulu, A-21 Lakavath Srinu S/o Mangza, S/o Thirumalaiswamy, A-4) Thukkaiappan S/o Thar confessed that, as per instructions of cne Esu B: Swarny. R/o: Veloor, Tamilnadu, who purchased th at Nawabpet Catfle Market and the same was : Kurnooi. Thereafter, the complainant brought th(l anci 08 female buffaloes, lcrry vehicle Br. No: KA_59_ taking necessary action. Hence, the complaint. S/o Murali, 2) Sriclhar, 4) M. orry and made said lorry and female buffalo ut proper food, , I vehicle . On 'injala Vignesh \-3) Ganeshr T gavel and they bu S/o Rama said animals ansporting to said 28 Oxen i.596 to PS for

4. Upon the said complaint, an FIR has been r :gistered vide Crime No.5O7 of 2O2l dated 72.09.2Cl27 on the file of police Station, Ghatkesar for the offences punishable unde _ Sections 1 1 and 38 of The prevention of Cruelty to Animals (p( A) Act, 1960 and Section 56 of the Transport of Animals Rules an, the custody of 28 Oxen and -O8. female buffaloes has been givr.r to Sahayog t * 3 Nandi Goshala, Chellur Village, Rajapet Mandal, Yadadri, Bhongir District by the Station House Ofhcer, Ghatkesar Police Station.

5. An application in Cr1.M.P.No.542 of 2O2l is filed by respondent No.2/accused on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar and the Iearned trial Court after examining the said facts had passed the order vide Dis.No.874 of 2O2l dated 19. lI.2O2l in Crl.M.P.No.542 of 2O2l by directing the Sahayog Nandi Goshala, Chellur Village, Rajapet Mandal, Yadadri, Bhongir District, to return the case property to Sri Ch. Yesubabu S/o. Ramasrvamy and had further directed to take receipt from him as acknowledgement and the same receipt shall be filed in this Court immediately without any delay. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has hled the present criminal petition. 6 . l,earned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's organization is [ooking after the safe custody of the ca.se property and have been maintaining them with their own expenses. It is further submitted that, while the proceedings were pending, the application in Cr1.M.P.No.542 of 2O2l was filed \ /ithout making the petitioner a party, which is not in accordance llzith law. This amounts to a misrepresrntation and accordingly, the petitioner seeks to allow the present writ petition. 1 4

7. lrarnecl counsel appearing for the unoffir:i rl respondent would submit that the custody of the said caso property was handed over to the petitioner only for tem I )rary interim management and therefore, he prayed this Court o dismiss the present criminal petition.

8. Taking the same into account, the learned Lr sistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the case property wl ; handed over to the petitioner at his request as an interirn measLrl e and it is the duty o[ the respondent therein in Crl.M.P.No .542 of 2 C21 to comply with the order passeci by the learned trial Court tc, rand over the case property to the petitioner therein. Hence, he :r ;o prayed this Court to dismiss the present criminal petition.

9. Having regard to the submissions made by br h the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case property is in the custody of the petitioner herein and the responil :nt No. l-State ought to have brought the said facts to the learned t 'ial Court and in the absence of making the petitioner a{i a party in Crl.M.P.No.542 of 2A2l passing the order without g r ing any notice to the petitioner is a violation of law. Accordinglr- this Court is inciined to set aside the order passed by tir r learned IV Melropolitan Magistrate Court, Ranga Reddy Distrit:t at I/.B.l.lagar vide Dis.No.874 ot 2027 in Crl.M.P.No.S42 of 2O2t i:-t FIR No.5O7 of 202 1 dated 1g.ll.2(l2i and respondent No.2 is c rected to file 5 necessary application before the learned trial Court, if he so chooses, by making the petitioner a party and upon receipt of such application, the learned trial Court shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance wittr law.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed Miscellaneous Petitions, pending i[ any, shall stand closed SD/- K.AMMAJI PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate cum Additional Junior civil Judge, Cyberabad at LB.Nagar- 2- The Station House Officer, Ghatkeshwar Police Station, Rachakonda Dist' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to Mr. BHOOPATHI RANJITH KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (l-G) Advocate [OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies t..ry HIGH COURT DATED:2810il202s \1t- STr rt l; ::- l:_-, i ..) \.: \ r,., /,\/l C':) )r lne', ',^...) ORDER CRLP.No.8772 ot 2021 Accordingly,this Criminal pctition is allow,e l. O^ \v 1,\ b