Dhyan Foundation Gaushala Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

134441

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IVONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 365 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dhyan Foundation Gaushala having address at SahayogNandishala Survey No 318, Challur Village, Rajapeth [Vlandal, Nalgonda Having registered^no. 631 of 2004 under Societies Act Through its authorized representative-^Sri Nitesh vijayvargiya, S/o.Vijay kuamar vijay vargya, age. 44 Years, Occ Gow Sevak, R/o H NO. 3 5-806/2, Swamy towers, Hyderguda, Hyderabad 500029

¶9

..PETITIONER/3RD PARTY

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana,, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad

¶12

2 Varrkuppala Parashuram,, S/o.Saidulu, Age. 30 yrs,Occ. business, R/o.H.NO.4 36/ 1,New Jangam, Samsthan Narayanpur, Yadari Bhuvangiri Dist.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petrtion under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Nilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{High Court may be} pleased to call for the records pertain to the proceeding dated CRLMP NO 136 of 2025 Dated 12-08 2025 lN FIR NO 95 OF 2025 ( PS^{Noothankal)of HON'BLE} Judrcal Magistrate of First Class At Thungathurthy and^quash /^{set-a-sidethe} same as abuse of the process of Law and^pass such other^{orderor ordersmay} deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶15

I.A, NO: 2OF 2026

¶16

Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances stated in the tvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{High Courtmaybe} pleased pleased to suspend the by proceeding dated CRLMP NO. 136 of 2025 Dated. 12-08-2025 lN FIR NO. 95 OF 2025⁽ PS Noothankal) of Judical^[/agistrate of First Class At Thungathurthy and pass such other order or orders^{may deem fit} and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶17

.ry

¶18

Thrs Petitron comtng on for hearing. upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G.L. Narasrmha Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG) on br-.half of the Respondent No 1.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

a

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.365 of 2026

¶24

Date: 19.01.2026

¶25

Between

¶26

Dhyan Foundation Gaushala

¶27

Petitio ne r

¶28

AND

¶29

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad and another

¶30

.Respondents

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short^'BNSS') by the petitioner/3'd party seeking to quash the order, dated 12.08.2025 passed in Crl.A/l P No.136 of 2025 in FIR No.95 of 2025 by the learned Judicial l\rlagistrate of First Class at Thungathurthy.

¶33

II

¶34

2

¶35

Heard lVlr.G.L Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and [Vlr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No 1-State.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is representing Goshala and that tnterint custody of animals is grven to the said Goshala and to meet the expenses of maintaining the said animals, under Rule 5(4) of Preventron of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the Magistrate has to direct that the vehicle should be held as a security by the concerned Goshala.

¶37

Learned counsel furlher submrtted that in violation of the said Rule, the learned trial Court passed an order, dated 12.08.2025 in Crl lV.P.No.136 of 2025 granting interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner therein/owner of the property, which is not just and proper in the eye of law and therefore prayed to set aside the said order.

¶38

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that interim custody of the vehicle should not be handed over to the petitioqer, even if he is not an accused, but it should be given as a \ security to the Goshala, which is maintaining the aninrals herein

¶39

3

¶40

(

¶41

Perused the record. The petition vide Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2025 was allowed by the trial Court granting interim cuslody of the vehicle to the petitioner therein subject to furnishing a personal bond for Rs.4,00,0001. Rule 5 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference.

¶42

"5. Execution of bond.- (1) The l'"4agistrate when handing over the custody of animal to an infirmary, pinjarapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala shall determine an amount which is sufficient to cover all reasonable cost incurred and anticipated to be incurred for transpotT, maintenance and lreatment of the animal basecl on the input provided by the jurisdicttonal veterinary officer and shall dtect the accusd and the owner to execute a bond of thc determined value with sureties within three days and if the accused and owner do not execute the bond, the animal shall be forfeited to infurnary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Anmal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala.

¶43

(2) The infirmary, pinjrapole, SPCA, Animal Welfare Organisation or Gaushala havutg the custody of the animal may draw on from the bond on a fortnightly basls lhe actual reasonable cost incurred in caring for lhc animal from the dale received custody till the date of final disposal of the animal.

¶44

(3) The Magistrale shall call for the accused and the owner to execute additional bond with sureties once eighty percent of the initial bond amount has been exhausted as cosl for canng for the animal.

¶45

(4) Where a vehicle has been involved in an offence, the Magistrate shall direct that the vehicle be held as a security.

¶46

4

¶47

I

¶48

(5) ln case ot offence relating lo transpott of animals the t,ehicle owner. consignor. consignec. lransporter. agents and any otltcr patties involved shall be lointly and severally liable for the cosl af tr;1nspot1. hL.atncnt anl carc o[ animals.

¶49

i/r cases where a body cot'porate owns Lhe anintal tlrc Clticf Exacutive Officer. Ptesident or hghest+anktng employee of thc body corporatc the body corporale and lhe accLtsed shall bc lointly^{and severall;/liablefor lhe cosl of [ransport,} trealment and care of the animal

¶50

(7) ,) cases where lhe Goventment owns lhe antntal. the Head of the Depz|'tment and the accused shall be pi ly attd severally liable for lhe cosl of transporl Lreattnent and care of thc animal.

¶51

(B) lf the owner and the accusecl do not have the nrcans to furnish the bond. the l,4agistrate shall direct the local aultority to undertake fhe costs involved and recover lhe sarne as arrears of Iand revenue.'

¶52

7 Thus, in view of Rule 5 and Rule 5 (4) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the trial Court is not supposed to grant interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner therein. lnstead, it has to be kept as a security to the Goshala. Hence, the orders passed by the trial Court are liable to be set-aside.

¶53

B. ln view of the aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 12.08.2025 passed tn Crl.tV.P.No.136 of 2025 in FIR No.95 of 2025 by the tearned Judicial [Vagistrate of First Class at Thungathurthy

¶54

5

¶55

L As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

¶56

stand closed

¶57

SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

6

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 , The Judicial lr/lagistrate of First Class at Thungathurthy' 2. The Station House^{Offrcer, NoothankalPolrceStation, Suryapet'} 3. Two CCs to The Public^{Prosecutor, High Court of Hyderabad [OUT]} 4. One CC to Sri G.L. Narasimha^{Rao, Advocate} [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

% SR4SI,

J

HIGH COURT

DATED:19t01t2026

,F
r o R THF .9
A
U )
I(9
7-t
1o tt|8 102[ E
+ )
lr
rcrJ@

¶68

ORDER