P.M.Murali And ANR v. P.V.Jaffer
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/8/2024 P. M. Murali and Another Vs.
P. V. Jaffer Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Mrs. Vinita Devi .... for the petitioners Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal Mr. C.Mano ... for the respondent March 17, 2025 [SR] Item No.22 1.
The petitioner no.1 is the Member Secretary and the petitioner no.2 is the member of Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (South Andaman). It is a semi government autonomous body to look after the welfare of the animals. The petitioner received source information relating to cruelty upon animals on 19th December, 2022 and verbally informed the Superintendent of Police, south Andaman who is Co-Chairman of the said society of the aforesaid information, the petitioner along with Station House Officer, Police Station Bambooflat along with his subordinate police officials visited the land of one Mr. James at Wrightmyo, Ferrargunj Tehsil, South Andaman and found 10 Bovines together ( 5 bulls, 3 Cows and 2 calves) brutally tied in a piece of two meter length rope in hot sun without food, water and shed for the past three days and transported illegally without any permit for animals and upon investigation along with the Station House Officer, Police
Station, Bambooflat team it was found that P.V.Jaffer, the respondent herein resident of Mannarghat (bucher by Profession) claim those animals to be his but those animals aer without tag on the ear and it seems that the same was for the purpose of sale and therefore the petitioner on 19.12.2022 made a written complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station Bambooflat to immediately seize and produce the said animals before the Magistrate to save hem and to send them to Animals Shelter.
2.
As a counter blast to it, the opposite party filed a complaint against the present petitioners alleging criminal trespassers and defalcation, the Coordinate Bench, in its order dated 10th July, 2024, on perusal of the statement of the complaint recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C has observed as follows:
"I have perused the averments in the petition of complainant as well as the statement of the complainant recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. No other witness was examined. Gist of the allegation of the complainant is that the petitioners had entered the property of the opposite party no.2 and abused him with filthy language. They demanded money and threatened to file false case against him.
"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the office bearers of a society interested in protection of animals. On their report criminal case under provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act had been registered against the opposite party no.2. Out of
grudge and retaliation, the instant case has been registered.
Admittedly criminal case has been registered against the opposite party no.2 under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty against Animal. It is nobody's case that the allegation against opposite party No. 2 is false. The offence registered against opposite party No. 2 is a cognizable one and every individual has a right to inform police with regard to offence.
The allegation that the petitioners demanded money has not been prima facie accepted and no cognizance has been taken under section 166 of the IPC. Informing the opposite party No. 2 that criminal case shall be registered against him cannot constitute an act of criminal intimidation. Prima facie, petitioners have made out a case that ingredients of the alleged offences are not disclosed and the impugned criminal proceeding was a counter blast to the criminal case registered against the opposite party No.2."
3.
Mr. KMB Jayapal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondent complainant submits that in any event and in view of the matter, the allegation of the criminal trespassers as disclosed in the complaint cannot be brushed aside. I am not inclined to accept the said statements having regard to the nature of the complaint of the petitioner. The subsequent complaint by the opposite party was by way of retaliation. Moreover the petitioner was accompanied by the Station House Officer for the purpose of rescuing the animals. 4.
On such consideration, CR/20/2023 is quashed. 5.
CRR/8/2024 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
( Soumen Sen, J. )