Mysore Pinjarapol Society vs Shivalinge Gowda

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikere, in C.C. No. 3251/2013 dated 3.6.2014.

The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that the Javagal Police in Crime No. 650/2013 have seized 16 buffaloes on the allegation that those animals were being transported for the purpose of slaughtering and thereby the accused persons have committed offences punishable under sections 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 etc. On production of the P.F. No. 95/2013 at the initial stage those buffaloes at the request and instance of the Police have been handed over to the Bhagavan Mahaveer Goshala Trust at Arsikere town. The said Bhagavan Mahaveer Goshala Trust have taken the said animals to their custody and according to them, due to the inadequacy of the place, they have sent those animals to the Mysore Pinjrapole Society (petitioner herein) and infact the said Mysore Pinjrapole Society has received the said animals on certain conditions and the acknowledgement under which the animals were received is also produced before this Court at page No. 51.

The first respondent claiming himself to be the owner of three buffaloes, made an application under section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking interim custody of those animals. The learned Magistrate has released the said animals in favour of him. The learned counsel contends that no opportunity has been given by the learned Magistrate either to the Bhagavan Mahaveer Goshala Trust or to the petitioner before releasing the said animals. The learned Magistrate has ordered to release those animals or conditions. Having come to know about the said order, the said Bhagavan Mahaveer Goshala Trust has preferred a revision petition against the order of the learned Magistrate in Criminal Revision Petition No. 226/2013 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hassan. The said criminal revision petition came to be dismissed for default vide order dated 18.12.2013. The said order of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, has been challenged before this Court in Criminal Petition No. 1974/2014. This Court vide order dated 4.8.2014 allowed the petition and restored the said criminal revision petition No. 226/2013 on to the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, for disposal on merits within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

In the meantime, the first respondent being the applicant before the Trial Court has made another application under section 457 of Cr.P.C. on 1.4.2014 making the present petitioner also as one of the respondents. In the said application, the petitioner has sought that the said Mysore Pinjrapole Society is not releasing the animals but they are demanding maintenance charges from the applicant. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties has passed an order rejecting the statement filed by the present petitioner and directed to release the said animals as per the order dated 11.10.2013, if not the applicant is entitled to take assistance of the Police for such release etc. The claim of the petitioner herein with regard to the maintenance charges was kept open by the Magistrate to be urged before the appropriate forum. The said order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 3251/2013 dated 3.6.2014 is under challenge before this Court.

On perusal of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that at the time of releasing the animals in favour of the first respondent herein, the learned Magistrate has not given any opportunity to the Bhagavan Mahaveer Goshala Trust or to this present petitioner and they have not been heard with regard to their statement filed before the Court subsequently. Even the learned Magistrate has rejected the statement filed by the said Mysore Pinjrapole Society with regard to claiming of maintenance etc. On perusal of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate under section 457, it is virtually deciding the right of the petitioner herein, Mysore Pinjrapole Society with regard to the claim made by them with regard to the maintenance amount etc. Therefore, in my opinion, that order is also revisable before the Sessions Court. However it is seen that a revision petition is already pending before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hassan, challenging the earlier order of the Magistrate in releasing the animals in favour of the respondent. The petitioner herein is also at liberty to file appropriate revision petition before the same Court challenging the orders of the learned Magistrate dated 3.6.2014 (impugned in this petition) for appropriate remedies. In the event of the petitioner filing any revision petition challenging the orders of the learned Magistrate dated 3.6.2014 in C.C. No. 3251/2013, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge has to club both the revision petitions, that means to say, hear the revision petition earlier filed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 226/2013 along with the revision petition proposed to be filed by the present petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

Having come to such conclusion, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, in my opinion, is very harsh and it is coercive in nature. The learned Magistrate also should have borne in mind that the petitioner Society is a Society which is a social organization which is working for the benefit of the society at large. Whether they are entitled for maintenance amount, cost or not, opportunity should have been given by the learned Magistrate in this regard before passing such orders. Therefore, such coercive orders, in my opinion, should not be enforced till the rights of the parties are adjudicated by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge in the above said criminal revision petitions. Hence, I issue an order of stay insofar as order of the learned Magistrate dated 3.6.2014 in C.C. No. 3251/2013 is concerned till the petitioner making any application in criminal revision petition before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge and till the disposal of the said application, this order of stay shall continue. With these observations, the this criminal petition deserves to be disposed of.

Accordingly, it is disposed of.