The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4435 of 2024 Naresh Pani & others …. Petitioners Mr. P.K. Maharaj, Advocate State of Odisha …. Opp. Party -versus- Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC Mr. T.K. Sahu, Advocate (For the intervenor) CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 18.11.2025 I.A. No.1311 of 2025 AND I.A. No.1312 of 2025 09. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Maharaj, learned counsel
Legal Reasoning
appearing for the petitioners and Mr. T.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the intervenors. 2. The petitioners had challenged the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., R. Udayagiri in MC No.06/2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.154 of 2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 503 of the BNS, although was allowed directing release of 142 nos. of ceased cattle to them, however, with certain conditions. The Page 1 of 9 petitioners were aggrieved by such condition, hence they approached this Court.
Decision
3. The CRLMC was disposed of by a speaking order on 07.01.2025. This Court, while directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to begin with, which would be spent for up- keeping of the cattle relegated the petitioners to move a fresh application seeking variation of the conditions ingrained in the impugned order. 4. In the said disposed of matter, Sri Sri Radha Madan Mohan Gosala and Sri Prabhupada Sebashrama, Ganjam moved an intervention application and an application seeking recall of the final order dated 07.01.2025. That’s how the matter has come on board. 5. The intervenor-applicant primarily contended that against the same impugned order, they had also filed a separate CRLMC petition being CRLMC No.1620 of 2025. Both the CRLMCs ought to have heard together, however that petition has been listed before the other determination/assignment. 6. Its further contended that CRLMC No.4435 of 2024 has been disposed of without hearing the intervenor-applicant. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Sahu, learned counsel is that the petitioners have misled this Court on facts. Besides that, Mr. Page 2 of 9 Sahu, learned counsel contended that as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Dhyan Foundation vs. State of Odisha and others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 1338, the Gosala, which is taking care of the seized cattle, was a necessary party whenever the application of the accused-applicant under Section 457 of the Cr. P.C. (Section-503 of the BNS) is heard. 7. To buttress his argument on merits, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraja & others, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 547 and in the case of Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh vs. Union of India & others and many other judgments in the similar line. Essentially, he submits that the matter ought to have been heard on merit in the light of various judgments passed by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Mr. Maharaja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners disputed the contentions raised by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel to the extent that he has not misled this Court on facts and submitted that this Court has only partially modified the order and directed his clients to approach the trial Court. Therefore, the modification of the said order is not called for. Page 3 of 9 9. When the application for modification moved by the Gosala is heard along with CRLMC No.1620 of 2025 filed by Gosala, it came to the light that, out of 142 seized cattle, 10 cattle have already died and remaining 132 nos. of cattle were handed over in the zima of four persons of Udayagiri village. A zimanama was also prepared and placed on record. However, it further came to the light that the persons those who have taken the zima of the cattle are absconding. Therefore, warrants were issued against them, which could not be executed. 10. It appears that the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., R. Udayagiri has sought a report regarding the status and wellbeing of the seized cattle. The I.I.C. of R. Udayagiri Police Station submitted a report on 23.09.2025 stating that the cattle are given in zima of four villagers those who have disappeared and efforts are being made to locate them. 11. In the light of the said report, the learned J.M.F.C. has passed various orders. From the aforementioned, a doubt has been created in the mind of the Court as to whether the intervenor-applicant Gosala is claiming to be in possession of all the seized cattle is correct or not. Therefore, this Court, on 23.09.2025 passed the following order: “1. Heard. Page 4 of 9 2. Pursuance to the order dated 18.09.2025, Mr. Aswini Bhitria, Inspector-in-Charge of R. Udayagri Police Station has appeared in person. He submits that out of 142 seized cattle, ten cattle have died and the remaining 132 cattle were handed over in zima to four persons of R. Udayagiri village. The Aadhar Cards of the four villagers and zimanama are also placed on record. He submits that the four persons those who have taken zima of the cattle have disappeared, warrants have been issued against them but they are not able to locate the four persons those who are taken zima of 132 cattle. The same thing is reflecting from the report dated 23.09.2025 by the I.I.C., R. Udayagiri P.S., which is placed on record. 3. Mr. Maharaj learned counsel for the petitioner in CRLMC No.4435 of 2024 has pointed out that vide order dated 25.06.2025, the learned J.M.F.C., R. Udayagiri has passed the following order:- “1. Explain the discrepancy between the affidavit dated 06.05.2025 and the letter vide DR No.984/PS dated 07.05.2025, as called for earlier by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2025. 2. Clarify how the deceased cattle were found in unrelated villages and identify the owners named in the photographs, explaining their connection. 3. Clarify the mismatch in the number and type of deceased cattle. 4. Explain the contradiction between the zimadars’ alleged avoidance of summons on 11.05.2025 and 15.04.2025 as reported by you in DR No.893/PS, dated 25.04.2025, post-mortem requisition by your office to the BVO, R. Udayagiri vide letter no. 873/R.Ud. PS dated 22.04.2025, including who reported the death of the bovine on 22.04.2025. and the 5. Submit the steps taken to trace the cattle (i.e., after submission of the charge sheet in GR 63/2025).” since 29.05.2025. Page 5 of 9 Even the said order has not yet been complied with by the Investigating Agency. 4. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRLMC No.1620 of 2025 submits that there is no confusion regarding the custody of the cattle because all the cattle are with the petitioner Gosala. 5. When a query was put to the I.I.C., R. Udayagiri P.S., who is appearing in person as to whether he has verified from the petitioner-Gosala regarding the fact that if the cattle were in their custody or not, he submitted that he has not visited the Gosala and has not verified the same. Therefore, he seeks an opportunity the petitioner-Gosala as to whether the cattle are in their possession or not. to verify from 6. Apart from complying with the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., R. Udayagiri, the I.I.C., R. Udayagiri P.S. shall also visit the petitioner-Gosala on 27th September, 2025 and prepare an exhaustive report and place it before this Court by the next date of hearing. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Gajapati shall also supervise this matter personally and file a separate report by the next date of hearing. 8. List this matter on 9th October, 2025.” 12. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the Superintendent of Police has filed a detailed report. Taking into account such report, this Court again passed an order on 16.10.2025, which reads thus: 1. Pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2025, Mr. Aswini Bhitria, Inspector-in-Charge of R. Udayagiri Police Station has appeared in person and filed two separate reports dated 06.10.2025, one by the Superintendent of Police, Gajapati, and another by the IIC, R. Udayagiri. The reports are taken on record. 2. Conjoint reading of the reports indicate that 132 Page 6 of 9 nos. of cattle are found to be with Sri Sri Radha Madan Mohan Gosala & Prabhupada Sebashram, Mulabhanaja, Ganjam. Paragarph-2 of the said report reads as under:- “2. On arrival at the said institution at about 12.30 P.M., we met the Secretary Sri Pramod Kumar Lenka and Treasurer Sri Krushna Chandra Panda. The enquiry was conducted in their presence. The Secretary and the Zimanama register for verification. As per Sl.No.02 dtd. 18.08.2024, it was found that a total 132 cattle had been received comprising 29 Nos. of Cows, 70 Nos. of bullocks and 33 Nos. of Calves pertaining to Sri Sri Radha Madan Mohan Gosala & Prabhupada Sebashram, Mulabhanaja, Ganjam.” treasurer produced Copy of the report has been supplied to Mr. Maharaj, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRLMC No. 4435 of 2024 so also to Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRLMC No. 1620 of 2025. 3. Mr. Aswini Bhitria, Inspector-in-Charge of R. Udayagiri Police Station is not required to appear before this Court henceforth after the report is being filed. Hence, his personal appearance is dispensed with for the time being. 4. List this matter on 11th November, 2025.” 13. The factual scenario regarding the very possession, wellbeing and status of the seized cattle was not coming on record with clarity. Only after the direction of this Court, vide order dated 23.09.2025, the Superintendent of Police filed a detailed report clearing the cloud around the issue. 14. In view of the clarity in the position regarding the Page 7 of 9 possession, wellbeing and status of the cattle as has been reported to this Court by the Superintendent of Police, it has become imperative for this Court to direct the trial Court to decide the application of the petitioner afresh taking into account the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in this regard. 15. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., R. Udayagiri in MC No.06/2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.154 of 2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., R. Udayagiri to decide the application moved by the petitioner under section 457 Cr.P.C (under Section 503 of the BNS) afresh by hearing all the stakeholders including the intervener Gosala. So as to avoid delay, this Court expects that the court below would do well to see that the application is disposed of at earliest. 16. It is open for both the parties to raise their contentions before the learned Court below. 17. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the case and also not delved upon the applicability of the judgments cited by both the learned counsels for the parties to the facts of the present case. The points raised by Mr. Maharaj and Mr. Sahu, learned counsels are left open Page 8 of 9 to be appreciated by the learned trial Court. 18. With the aforementioned observation, I.A. No.1311 of 2025 and I.A. No.1312 of 2025 are disposed of. Judge (S.S. Mishra) Subhasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 18-Nov-2025 20:02:26 Page 9 of 9