The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

proceedings in C.C.No.5645/2018 pending before the II

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out

of Crime No.297 of 2017 registered for offences punishable

under Sections 427 and 279 of IPC and Section 2 of Karnataka

Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

2. Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri. K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

3. The brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as

follows:

3

The petitioner is an animal rights activist and an animal

welfare officer of Animal Welfare Board of India which the

petitioner claims to be a registered organization. On 14-10-2017

the petitioner receives some information with regard to 14 desi

cattle hidden near Abrar Medical Stores kept ready for their

slaughter. On receipt of the said information, the petitioner visits

the spot for verification and on verification it was found that the

said cattle were in fact slated to be slaughtered. The petitioner

then reports the incident to the Police immediately and the

police had assured that cattle would be rescued by the end of

the day and she was asked to assist them in identifying the

location. The petitioner and an associate reached the spot to

identify and rescue the cattle at which point in time, it is the

case of the petitioner that about 150 to 200 people assembled at

the spot and the mob starting pelting stones or hurling bricks at

the petitioner9s car which resulted in severe damage to the car.

The petitioner claims to have escaped mob fury with great

difficulty. Based upon the said incident, the petitioner registers

4

crime in Crime No.295 of 2017 for offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 354, 427 r/w 149 of the IPC. The

complaint was registered on 14-10-2017.

4. On coming to know that the petitioner had registered a

complaint on 14-10-2017, the complainant who was a part of

the mob filed a counter complaint against the petitioner on

16-10-2017 in Crime No.297 of 2017 alleging that the petitioner

drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused

damage to the property belonging to the complainant to the tune

of Rs.35,000/-. The police after investigation also filed a charge

sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under

Section 427, 279 and 337 of the IPC and Section 187 of the

Indian Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Magistrate takes

cognizance of the offence on 01-08-2018 and issues summons to

the petitioner. It is then the petitioner has knocked the doors of

this Court in the subject petition challenging entire proceedings

in C.C.No.5645 of 2018.

5

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

would contend with vehemence that the petitioner with the

assistance of police sought to rescue 14 cattle which were

illegally being taken to slaughter house and was badly attacked

by the mob. Based on the said incident a complaint was

registered by the petitioner immediately on the date of the

alleged incident. As a counter-blast, the impugned complaint is

registered against the petitioner. Without looking into these

facts, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and set in

motion the criminal law. The learned senior counsel would

submit that registration of the complaint is nothing but a

counter-blast to the registration of the complaint of the

petitioner without explaining as to why there was a delay in

registration of the complaint.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government

Pleader would seek to justify the action of the police in

registering the complaint and the learned Magistrate taking

6

cognizance of the offence. He would submit that it is a matter for

the petitioner to face trial and come out clean.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated dates and e