FIR quashed against cattle purchaser where cruelty and overcrowding allegations remained unproved.

The petitioner invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR C.R. No. II-113 of 2017 registered at Varnama Police Station, Vadodara, under Sections 6(1)(3), 6(a) and 6(b) of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954; Sections 11(1)(a), (d), (e) and (h) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; and Sections 295(a), 192 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code

The FIR alleged that 27 cattle were being transported in truck No. TN-16-Y-3799 without the requisite permit, in overcrowded and cruel conditions, and for illegal slaughter outside Gujarat

The petitioner contended that he was merely the purchaser and intended recipient of the cattle for breeding purposes at his farm in Tamil Nadu, and had neither transported the animals nor subjected them to cruelty

During the pendency of the petition, the co-accused were acquitted in Criminal Case No. 2914 of 2018, with the trial court finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the number of animals transported and that they were overcrowded so as to cause unnecessary pain or suffering

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioner disclosed sufficient material to justify his prosecution for offences under the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the Indian Penal Code

2. Whether, in view of the acquittal of the co-accused and the absence of proof of overcrowding or cruelty, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process and should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice

It considered the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, including Sections 11(1)(a), (d), (e), (h) and 31, and Sections 295(a), 192 and 114 IPC

Under Section 31 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, only offences under Sections 11(1)(n) and (o) and Section 12 are cognizable, while the other offences under Section 11 are non-cognizable; the Court also noted the statutory scheme concerning punishment and the limited liability of an owner who merely failed to exercise care and supervision

Applying Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, the Court held that proceedings may be quashed where the uncontroverted allegations do not prima facie establish the offence, or where the special facts demonstrate that the likelihood of conviction is bleak and continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose

The Court found that the prosecution case had materially weakened because the co-accused had been acquitted after the trial court held that the number of cattle and the allegation of overcrowded transportation causing unnecessary pain had not been proved

The petitioner was not alleged to have personally transported or ill-treated the animals; he was principally the purchaser and intended recipient. Further, the certificate issued by the animal seller recorded that the necessary arrangements, including feeding and rest, had been verified and satisfactorily made

In these circumstances, the allegations and available material did not establish a sufficient basis for proceeding against the petitioner, and the case fell within the Madhavrao Scindia principle that a prosecution with bleak prospects of conviction and no useful purpose should not be permitted to continue

Rule was made absolute to that extent, and direct service was permitted