IMPORTANT POINT
1. The quashing of FIR at the instance of third parties is unknown to law.
2. Those who are not even remotely alleged to have committed offence/ offences cannot be convicted at all either at the trial or while exercising so called wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of constitution.

JUDGMENT

J.M. Panchal, J. —

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against judgment dated December 30, 2008, rendered by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in ‘Special Criminal Application No. 1387 of 2008 by which; while dealing with two prayers made by the respondent No. 1 to 6 herein, namely, (a) to declare that the order dated July 5, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deesa, refusing to hand over custody of the live stock to them is illegal and (b) to declare that they are entitled to get custody of the entire live stock, which is in illegal custody of Bharat Kothari, i.e., appellant No. 1 herein and confined in the Panjarapole at Kanth, near Deesa, the learned Single Judge has : -

i) held that each of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are guilty under Section 11 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and punished each of them with fine of Rs.50/-;

ii) quashed the FIR No. II-C.R.No. 3131 of 2008, registered with Deesa City Police Station for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, Section 11 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 5, 6 and 8 of Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954, at the instance of the appellant No. 1 as well as the proceedings pursuant thereto, including the orders for interim custody of the animals and the revision applications preferred therefrom;

ii) directed the appellant No. 1 to pay, by way of compensation and cost, to each of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 a sum of Rs.75,000/-, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the criminal proceedings initiated by way of Criminal Inquiry Case No. 237 of 2008 and pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur, as well as to pay, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 the cost of maintenance and treatment of the animals in question to the respondent No. 8 herein, i.e., Panjarapole Pat an in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (4) of Section 35 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, within a period of one month, i.e., latest by January 30, 2009;

iv) directed respondent No.8, which is entrusted care and custody of the animals under interim order, to hand over the surviving animals to the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in such proportion as the original number of seized animals bears to the number of surviving animals;

v) directed the State of Gujarat, i.e., respondent No.7 herein, to take appropriate departmental action for illegal or unauthorized actions, if any, on the part of any police officer and if, upon inquiry it prima facie appears that any police officer has participated In a cognizable offence, to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against such officer;

vi) directed the Registrar of the High Court to serve copy of the judgment upon the appellant No.2, i.e., Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of EnvironJ:I1ent and Forests, Government of India, 13/1, Third Seaward Road, Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvamiyr, Chennai; and

vii) directed (a) the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to take over the custody and care of surviving animals within two weeks and (b) that the Police Officer in-charge of the Police Station at Pat an to supervise the delivery of the animals to the respondents by the appellant or respondent No.8 in such manner that the animals are not subjected to further cruelty in their transportation within the area of his jurisdiction. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are further directed not to commit any offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in respect of the surviving animals and submit an undertaking to that effect to the police officer incharge of the Police Station at Patan.

3. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: -

The appellant No. 1 is an Animal Right Activist. He is also Secretary of Rajpur-Deesa Panjarapole, which is a public trust and involved in preservation of old, infirm and stray cattle. One of the ob