UDAYAKIRAN@UDAYAN v. STATE OF KERALA

They also found that both the dogs were sick with ailments and required treatment.

5. After informing the 2^ndrespondent about their purpose of visit, they tried to take custody of the dogs. When they met with resistance, they sought for help from the local police. On 21.04.2014 at about 5 .00 pm, the dogs were taken into custody by the members of the organization with the assistance of the police personnel. According to the 2^ndrespondent, by the acts of the respondents, he had sustained a loss of Rs.50,000/-.

6. Alleging the commission of offence under Sections 448, 379, 392, 341, 506(1), 427 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC, the 2^ndrespondent filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kottarakkara. The Secretary of the People Forum for Animal Rights, the petitioners herein and six other who could be identified at sight, were arrayed as accused in the complaint. The complaint was forwarded to the police and Crime No.1282 of 2014 was registered on 4.7.2014.

7. A detailed investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara, who referred the case by concluding that no offence was made out.

8. Immediately thereafter, a protest complaint was lodged before the learned Magistrate arraying as many as seven persons as accused. Accused Nos.

3

1 to 3 are office bearers of the People For Animals, Thiruvananthapuram Chapter, the petitioners herein are accused Nos. 4 and 5 and the police officers attached to the Kottarakkara Police Station are the accused Nos. 6 and 7.

9. The learned Magistrate after examining the 2^ndrespondent and his witnesses, took cognizance of the case as C.C.No.1500 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 143, 448 , 379 r/w. section 149 of the IPC.

10. The criminal proceedings initiated against them are sought to be quashed by this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

11. Heard Smt.T.S.Maya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent.

12. Smt.T.S.Maya, the learned counsel, contended that the petitioners had seen firsthand the suffering to which the dogs were being put to by the 2^nd respondent and his wife, who were senior citizens. All that the petitioners did was intimate the People for Animals Forum and nothing more. The officers of the said organization came with a veterinary surgeon and they noticed that the dogs were sick and ailing and not cared for. The petitioners never even entered the premises of the 2^ndrespondent. According to the learned counsel, the offence under Section 448 or under Section 380 will not be attracted against them. It is further submitted that in Annexure-A3 complaint lodged on 26.06.2014, the 2^nd

4

respondent had no case that the petitioners herein were also present along with the rest of the accused when the custody of the dogs were taken on 21.04.2014. She would then contend that the 2^ndrespondent had instituted a civil suit before the Civil Court on 01.10.2014, and even in the plaint, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A4, he has no case that the petitioners were present when the dogs were taken. It is urged that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a clear case of abuse of process.

13. Sri.N.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, has very strenuously opposed the prayer. The learned counsel would contend that a false complaint was lodged by the petitioners before the Forum alleging ill treatment of the dogs. The learned counsel would refer to Annexure-R2(B) photographs and would contend that the dogs were healthy and sound and were having no ailments. According to the learned counsel, the 1^st petitioner demanded that one of the dogs be given to him. When the same was refused, he lodged a complaint before the Forum, whose officers, without any authority, entered his house and took away the dogs. In a couple of months, the dogs had died due to the ill treatment meted out to them by accused Nos. 1 to 3, submits the learned counsel. He would also highlight the fact that the petitioners did not even approach the Local Authorities. According to the learned counsel, if the dogs were suffering from any sort of ailments, they could have brought the same to the notice of a Senior Veterinary Doctor of the Kottarakkara, but this was not done. It is further urged that the learned

5

Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences after finding that the ingredients of the offences are made out. This Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code should desist from interfering with such orders, submits the learned counsel.

14. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials made available.

15. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners herein had lodged a complaint before the Forum for animals that the 2^ndrespondent had been ill-treating his dogs. The members of the Forum visited the house and took away the dogs with police assistance. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners have every right to lodge a complaint before the authorities if they felt that the dogs were being ill-treated. Their complaint was found genuine even by the veterinary doctor, who had examined the dogs. Furthermore, they cannot be held answerable to what accused Nos. 1 to 3 had decided to do. The refer report submitted by the police after a detailed investigation also does not disclose any wrong doing on the part of the petitioners. I am firm in my mind that the allegations in the complaint will not attract the offences under Sections 143, 448, 379 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned.

16. It is by now settled that the powers possessed by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power

6

requires great caution in its exercise. However, if on appreciation of the final report as a whole and if it appears that the ingredients of the offence are absent and that the continuance of proceedings will only result in abuse of process, this Court will be well justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers. Having gone through the entire materials, I am of the considered view that the initiation of prosecution proceedings against the petitioners herein cannot be regarded as a legitimate exercise. None of the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out. It would be an abuse of process of court to allow any action which would result in injustice. I am satisfied that the initiation of prosecution proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court and its quashment would serve the ends of justice.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed and all further proceedings in C.C. No.1500 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottarakara, against the petitioners herein are quashed. SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

JUDGE

DSV/8.8.19 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

7

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CMP 1567/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE JFMC-1 KOTTARAKKARA

DATED 2.5.2016.

ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE 1ST

PETITIONER IN CC 1500/2016 DATED

7.4.2016.

ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF CMP-4664/2014 DATED 26.6.2014, CRIME 1282/2014 DATED 4.7.2014, ITS

MAHAZAR AND ITS FINAL REPORT FILED BY

THE KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION BEFORE

JFMC-I KOTTARAKKARA DATED 23.7.2015. ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF OS 599/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE

MUNSIFF COURT KOTTARAKKARA.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P A TO JUDGE

8