Bombay High CourtWP/280/2016dismissed

Shri Krishna Gausewa Sanstha, Nagpur Thr. President Shri Pradip S/O Mulchand Kashyap v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Bela, Nagpur And Another

2016-04-07Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 wp280.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 280 OF 2016 (SHRI KRISHNA GAUSEWA SANSTHA...VS..STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS BELA, NAGPUR & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : APRIL 07, 2016.

Heard Shri R.M.Daga, advocate for the applicant and Shri A.D. Sonak, A.P.P. for the non-applicant. The First Information Report is registered with the respondent No.1 on 28th December, 2015 to the effect that on 27th December, 2015 between 7.30 to 8.00 p.m., three persons viz. Sk. Ibrahim, Tulshidas Mahure and Deelip Wakade were taking 33 animals tied together and on being asked, they informed that they were carrying the animals for slaughter. The animals were seized.

The petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate for custody of the animals on supratnama. The learned Magistrate rejected this application by the order dated 30th March, 2016. The respondent No.2 filed an application seeking custody of 16 animals on supratnama. This application is allowed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 30th March, 2016. The petitioner-Sanstha, being aggrieved by this order has filed this petition.

2 wp280.16 The impugned order is purely interlocutory in nature. Apart from this, in my view, the petitioner-Sanstha cannot be said to be the aggrieved party in this matter as the ownership of the respondent No.2 in respect of 16 animals is not being disputed, as per the averments made in the First Information Report.

The learned A.P.P. has not been able to point out from the documents filed on record that the respondent No.2 is charged of any offence of having custody of animals illegally and which are not owned by him.

In view of the above, I see no reason to entertain the petition.

The petition is dismissed.

JUDGE RRaut..