TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 942
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and punished each of them with fine of Rs. 50/-; ii) quashed the FIR No. II-C.R.No. 3131 of 2008, registered with Deesa City Police Station for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, Section 11(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954, at the instance of the appellant No. 1 as well as the proceedings pursuant thereto, including the orders for interim custody of the animals and the revision applications preferred therefrom; iii) directed the appellant No. 1 to pay, by way of compensation and cost, to each of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 a sum of Rs. 75,000/-, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the criminal proceedings initiated by way of Criminal Inquiry Case No. 237 of 2008 and pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, as well as to pay, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 the cost of maintenance and treatment of the herein, i.e., Panjarapole Patan in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section 35 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, within a period of one month, i.e., latest by January 30,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of trucks was coming from Gayatri Temple. They waived their hands and search light to stop the trucks but the drivers of the trucks did not stop the vehicles and were found driving trucks speedily towards Palanpur. Therefore, the appellant No. 1 and others sat in an interceptor vehicle bearing registration number GJ-8-A-1294 and followed the trucks. The appellant No. 1 had his mobile phone with him and, therefore, informed the Police Control, Palanpur that trucks loaded with goats and sheep were coming speedily towards Palanpur, whereas he and others were following those trucks and, therefore, necessary action should be taken to halt the trucks at Aroma Circle Check Post. When the trucks reached near Aroma Circle, the drivers spotted the police. Therefore, they stopped their vehicles and, after leaving the trucks, ran away. On search being made, it was found that in all there were eight trucks and in each truck, goats and sheep were being conveyed in a congested manner. It was also noticed that there was no facility of fodder, water, etc. in any of the trucks and that the drivers had meted out cruelty to the animals. On making the inquiry as to who were driving the trucks, it was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a result of which the truck had turned on its side killing six cattle and causing damage to the said vehicle. 5. The case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 is that the appellant No. 1 and his associates are headstrong persons who had grabbed the consignment of sheep and goats illegally by stopping the trucks near Palanpur and forcing the trucks to be taken to Deesa. According to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, not a single sheep or goat had died in any of the trucks, but large number of them were shown to have died in the FIR with a view of have asserted that the appellant No. 1 had planned the entire operation of looting the trucks with the active help and connivance of local police at Deesa. Therefore, one of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed complaint against the appellant No. 1 with Superintendent of Police at Palanpur on June 17, 2008 itself about the forcible and violent taking over of the trucks with cattle and Rs. 500/-in cash. In the complaint filed with Superintendent of Police, Palanpur, nothing was done. Therefore, a criminal complaint was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, which is registered as Criminal Inquiry No. 237 of 2008 on June 18, 2008....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and imposed fine as well as given other directions referred to above giving rise to the instant appeal. 10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the documents forming part of the instant appeal as well as documents forming part of the Special Criminal Application No. 1387 of 2008, which was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 t0 6 before the High Court. 11. This Court notices that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the instant appeal had filed Special Criminal Application No. 1387 of 2008 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court stating that they were owners of the goats and sheep seized by the police pursuant to FIR No. II-C.R. No. 3131 of 2008, registered with Deesa City Police Station for alleged commission of offence under Section 279 IPC, Section 11(1)(d) of the Act and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 and claimed custody of the cattle. The names of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are as under: - 1. Dosukhan Samdakhan Sindhi, at Village Gudamalani, District Barmer, Rajasthan 2. Amirkhan Sadikkhan Sindhi, at Village Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan 3. Raz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had filed writ petition before the High Court, are not accused. Therefore, they could not have prayed for and, in fact, have not prayed to quash the FIR registered as II-C.R. No. 3131 of 2008 with Deesa City Police Station and the proceedings pursuant thereto. Prayer for quashing the FIR could have been made only by the accused, who have been named above. But none of them had chosen to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution to get quashed the FIR registered as II-C.R. No. 3131 of 2008 with Deesa City Police Station against them and the proceedings pursuant thereto. The quashing of FIR at the instance of third parties is unknown to law. Further, it is well settled that neither power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 nor jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised by the High Court to quash the complaint if prima facie commission of offences is made out. The complaint lodged by the appellant No. 1 is on the record of this appeal. A perusal of the same indicates that the appellant No. 1 has averred in his complaint that close to 2000 goats ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 279 of IPC and Section 11(1)(d) of the Act or Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Bombay Animal Preservation Act were not made out and also recorded another finding that excessive number of animals were carried in the vehicles due to which they were subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering. These findings are contradictory to each other in terms. Having held that no offence under Section 11(1)(d) of Act was made out, why the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, who are not shown as accused at all, are convicted under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, could not be explained by any of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also the grievance made by the appellant No. 1 in ground I of the memorandum of Special Leave to Appeal that by overstepping its jurisdiction and giving a go-bye to the regular trial, the High Court has quashed criminal proceedings without hearing the complainant/appellant No. 1 cannot be ignored by this Court in view of peculiar facts of the case. The learned Single Judge has quashed the complaint of the appellant No. 1 contrary to the well settled principles governing quashing of a complaint. Quashing of the complaint in part should not have been ordered after convi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by one of the aides of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 alleging therein that the police personnel as well as the appellant No. 1 and other persons had robbed the accused of goats and sheep on the trucks along with an amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- in cash. After hearing the complainant in that case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, passed an order on June 19, 2008 directing the complaint to be registered in the Criminal Inquiry Register and that is how Criminal Inquiry No. 237 of 2008 is registered in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur. Further by the said order the D.S.P., Palanpur was also directed to report within seven days before the court and submit a progress report every seventh day till the completion of the investigation, after which the court was to pass further orders. 14. The approach of the High Court in granting relief not prayed for cannot be approved by this Court. Every petition under Article 226 of the Constitution must contain a relief clause. Whenever the petitioner is entitled or is claiming more than one relief, he must pray for all the reliefs. Under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the plaintiff omits, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o grant custody of goats and sheep to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, in the Special Criminal Application, which was filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution through a were represented by a senior counsel practicing in the Gujarat High Court and having regard to the facts of the case, the learned lawyer was justified only in claiming those reliefs to which reference is made earlier. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were seeking a writ of certiorari or mandamus to declare that order dated July 5, 2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deesa, refusing to hand over custody of the goats and sheep seized to them, was illegal and were also seeking quashing of the said order. At no point of time, the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had moved any application seeking permission of the Court to amend the prayer clause contained in the petition so as to enable the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to claim compensation from the appellant No. 1. A fair reading of the petition makes it more than clear that no factual data whatsoever was laid by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for claiming compensation from the appellant No. 1. No facts were mentioned as to in which manner they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Inquiry Case No. 237 of 2008. Moreover, no claim was advanced by the respondent No. 8 herein that the appellant No. 1 should be directed to pay, on behalf of the owners, i.e., the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, the cost of maintenance and treatment of the animals in question in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section 35 of the Act. Normally, cost of maintenance and treatment of the animals in such cases would be payable by one who claims custody or who are the owners of the live stock but not by the complainant. In the instant case the assertion made by the appellant No. 1 is that he was handed over custody of goats and sheep by the police after registration of FIR seems to be that the appellant No. 1 had taken possession of the live stock and trucks illegally before the FIR was lodged and had acted in a high handed manner. The dispute whether appellant No. 1 was handed over custody of goats and sheep after filing of the complaint or whether he had obtained custody of goats and sheep illegally before the complaint was lodged, will have to be adjudicated upon evidence to be lead by the parties. Such a highly contentious dispute cannot and could not be resolved in a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Registrar of the High Court to serve a copy of the judgment impugned in the appeal upon the appellant No. 2, i.e., Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, 13/1 Third Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thruvamiyr, Chennai. As this Court is inclined to set aside most of the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, the direction to serve a copy of the judgment on the appellant No. 2, i.e., Animal Welfare Board of India becomes redundant and, therefore, the same is also liable to be set aside. 17. This takes the Court to answer the question whether respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are entitled to relief of interim custody of goats and sheep seized pursuant to filing of complaint No. II-C.R. 3131 of 2008 registered with Deesa City Police Station. The fact that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are owners of the goats and sheep seized is not disputed either by the appellant No. 1 or by the contesting respondents. Though the respondent No. 8 has, by filing counter reply, pointed out that the officials of Panjarapole at Patan are taking best care of the goats and sheep seized in the instant case, this Court finds that keeping the g....