- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40621 CRL.P No. 12949 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12949 OF 2025 BETWEEN: RAMESH MOGAVEERA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O ANNU MOGAVEERA, RESIDING AT, CHIKKATTADI KELAGINA MANE, HEROOR VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 243. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIRAMA ADIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BYNDOOR PS, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-560001. 2. THIMMESHA BN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O NOT KNOWN, POLICE OFFICER, BYNDOOR PS, UDUPI DISTRICT-576323. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1/STATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40621 CRL.P No. 12949 of 2025 DATED 31.07.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNS AND QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CR.NO.142/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT, BAINDURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF SLAUGHTER AND PRESERVATION OF CATTLE (TRANSPORTATION OF CATTLE) RULES 2021 U/S 4,5,7,12 AND I.M.V ACT UNDER SECTION 66, 192(A) VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for petitioner has sought to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.142/2025 of Byndoor Police Station, Udupi registered for the offence punishable under Section 4, 5, 7 and 12 of Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle (Transportation of cattle) Rules, 2021 and Section 66 and 192(A) of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40621 CRL.P No. 12949 of 2025 2. The aforementioned crime is registered on a suo moto complaint lodged by the Mangalore Police, wherein it is alleged that on 31.07.2025 at about 4.30 a.m., the accused were transporting a cattle in Ashok Leyland vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-47-8634 to the slaughter house, without any permission. 3. The learned counsel submitted that for the present he will not press the petition seeking quashing. However, the vehicle which is seized in the case, belonging to the petitioner has been produced before the Assistant Commissioner and the application seeking custody of the vehicle is kept pending since 07.08.2025. 4. A memo is filed along with copy of the letter written by the Assistant Commissioner to the RTO. As per the said letter dated 20.08.2025, the Assistant Commissioner has sought information from the RTO to verify the value of the vehicle, within a period of one week. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40621 CRL.P No. 12949 of 2025 5. The vehicle in question was seized on 31.07.2025. It is not in dispute that the vehicle along with PF No.97/2025 was produced before the Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura. As on today no order has been passed on the application filed by the petitioner. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore reported in (1977) 4 SCC 358, it is observed in para 4, which reads as under: "4. The object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary. As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to a government servant, the idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it ceases. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may be returned during any inquiry or trial. This may particularly be necessary where the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40621 CRL.P No. 12949 of 2025 property concerned is subject to speedy or natural decay. There may be other compelling reasons also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The High Court and the Sessions Judge proceeded on the footing that one of the essential requirements of the Code is that the articles concerned must be produced before the court or should be in its custody. The object of the Code seems to be that any property which is in the control of the court either directly or indirectly should be disposed of by the court and a just and proper order should be passed by the court regarding its disposal. In a criminal case, the police always acts under the direct control of the court and has to take orders from it at every stage of an inquiry or trial. In this broad sense, therefore, the court exercises an overall control on the actions of the police officers in every case where it has taken cognizance." 7. The above observations would also be applicable to any authority which deals with the interim custody of a vehicle. An application seeking the interim custody of a vehicle cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura is directed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40621 CRL.P No. 12949 of 2025 to dispose of the application seeking custody of the vehicle i.e., Ashok Leyland Registration No.KA-47-8634, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition is disposed of. I.A.Nos.1 and 2/2025 are disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16