- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36559 CRL.P No. 8462 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8462 OF 2025 BETWEEN: BIPIN POULOSE S/O POULOSE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO. KUPPAMADATHI HOUSE, KUMBALHERI POST, AMBALAVAYAL VILLAGE, SULTANBATHERI, WYNAD, KERALA - 673 591. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMARANATHAN A.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SULLIA POLICE STATION SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239 (REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BANGALORE - 560 001) 2. ERAIAHA D.N AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS PSI (L AND O) SULLIA POLICE STATION, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36559 CRL.P No. 8462 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER U/S.5, 6, 12 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER AND CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, 2020 AND U/S.11(1)(D) PREVENTION OF CRUETLY TO ANIMALS ACT 1960 IN C.C.NO.439/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SULLIA, D.K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is facing criminal proceedings in C.C.No.439/2024 for the offence punishable under section 11(1)(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). 2. The complaint in the present case came to be lodged against the petitioner on the allegation that he was transporting two cows and a calf from Kasargod to his native place at Sultanbatheri, Wayanad District, Kerala, through Sullia in the State of Karnataka. The prosecution’s - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36559 CRL.P No. 8462 of 2025 case is that, acting on certain information, the jurisdictional police, at about 7:30 p.m., registered a suo- motu complaint, which culminated in the registration of a crime. Pursuant to the investigation, a charge-sheet has been laid, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1, while the persons alleged to have sold the cattle have been arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3. 3. The petitioner, who figures as Accused No.1, contends that the offences alleged in the charge-sheet are not at all attracted to the facts of the case. According to him, even if the entire allegations contained in the charge- sheet are accepted at face value, the materials do not disclose any act indicating that the cattle were intended to be slaughtered. On the contrary, the petitioner asserts that he is an agriculturist, and that the two cows and the calf in question were purchased by him at Kasargod, Kerala, for the bona fide purpose of farming and agricultural activities. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36559 CRL.P No. 8462 of 2025 4. The petitioner further submits that while transporting the cattle to his village in Wayanad, the vehicle in which they were being carried happened to pass through certain portions of Karnataka State only because the driver had opted for a shorter route in order to avoid a circuitous journey. It is his case that some vested interests, for reasons best known to them, furnished misleading information to the police, which resulted in the registration of the present crime. 5. On a careful perusal of the charge-sheet materials, it is noticed that the trial has already commenced before the learned Magistrate. The question as to whether the petitioner is an agriculturist and whether he had purchased the cattle for agricultural purposes, as also the aspect of whether the purchase took place at Kasargod and the destination was within the territorial limits of Kerala State, are all matters that require evidence and a full-fledged trial. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36559 CRL.P No. 8462 of 2025 6. Likewise, the issue as to whether the provisions of the relevant Act are at all attracted to the present transportation, which was essentially intra-state within Kerala but happened to traverse through Karnataka, is also a mixed question of law and fact to be determined by the trial court. 7. The grounds urged by the petitioner in the present petition, at the highest, amount to defence pleas, which cannot appropriately be examined in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proper course for the petitioner would be to place necessary materials and adduce evidence before the trial court to substantiate his contention that the cattle were purchased for agricultural purposes and that the registration of the crime under the impugned provisions is misconceived. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the case on hand is a fit matter to be adjudicated upon in trial proceedings, and no ground is made out for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36559 CRL.P No. 8462 of 2025 interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to lead appropriate rebuttal evidence before the learned Magistrate. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Kerala, the learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter at the earliest, in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK