ORDER
G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. by A-1 to A-3 in Crime No. 470 of 2005 on the file of Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad, to quash the proceedings against them in the said crime.
2. At the instance of the second respondent, the crime was registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 429 read with 34 of I. P. C. and Sections 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to; Animals Act, 1960. The second respondent filed a complaint before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the Police under Section 156 of Cr. P. C. to register the crime and to investigate the case. On receipt of the said proceedings, the Police registered it as Crime No. 470 of 2005 under the penal provisions as referred above. The accused, being aggrieved by the registration of the crime against them, preferred the present Criminal Petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that the allegations of the complaint are false and they do not attract the ingredients of any of the penal provisions under which the crime was registered.
3. The allegations of the complaint are briefly as follows:
The complainant is the owner of four horses out of which the names of two horses are 'Onnu Onnu Onnu' and 'Heekh Heekh Heekh'. As per existing norms of the Hyderabad Race Course, the complainant entrusted all the four horses to A-1 for training, maintenance and other cautions to be taken by a Trainer. The complainant used to pay Rs. 8,000/- per horse per month including the charges of the accused. A-l agreed not only to train the horses, but also to take care of feed and medical care with all dedication befitting to the circumstances. As per the terms and conditions, A-1 is also entitled to receive certain percentage of the amount won by horse trained by him along with the jockey and owner of the horse. As it came to the knowledge of the complainant about certain amount of negligence on the part of A-l in training the horses, the complainant instructed A-1 to return the horses. A-1 received the transfer letter from the Hyderabad Race Course and in the process of transfer of the horses, A-l with the collusion of A-2 and A-3, removed the high heel shoe of two horses as mentioned above and replaced with flat heel shoe which was an act of brutality, hurting and to destroy a living animal intentionally and with a dishonest intention to pull down the performance of the horse 'Onnu Onnu Onnu'. The fixing of the flat heel shoe would cause lameness to forelegs, which ultimately affects on the Jockey and horse resulting in severe pain. At the time of taking return of the horses from A-1, another Trainer, to whom the horses were transferred, brought to the notice of the complainant about the change of shoe heels. The complainant lodged a report with the Hyderabad Race Club and, on consequence of the same, an enquiry was conducted and came to a conclusion that the accused deliberately changed the horse shoes which will affect the performance of the horse including the cruelty to the horse by resulting in dislocation of joint shoulders or fractures to the horse. Accused No. 1, being influential, was imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and suspension of licence for a period of one month from 16-11 -2005 to 15-12.-2005 for changing the shoes to the horse 'Onnu Onnu Onnu' on 19-2-2005. The complainant further alleged that the above acts of A-1 will come out of jealousy and vengeance on account of transfer of horse to another Trainer. A-1 connived with A-2 and A-3 in changing the high heel shoes of the forelegs of the horses with flat shoes, thereby committed breach of trust and cheated the complainant with a dishonest intention to deceive him and badly affect the condition on the animal not only in the race, but also in the normal life, which will result in severe pain and cause lameness or fracture to the animals. Hence, the complaint to prosecute the accused.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the horses were fixed high heel shoes as per the specifications of A-l, they were removed with an intention to give choice to the new Trainer to fix the high heel shoes of his choice. He further submitted that there was never any intention on the part of the accused either to commit breach of trust or to cheat the complainant at the time of entrustment of the horse to him and during the custody of the horse with A-l, they won the race on two or three occasions due to the excellent training and the care taken by A-1, therefore, no breach of trust has been committed by A-l in removing the high heel shoes. He further submitted that at the time of entrustment of the horses, there was no intention to cheat the complainant and nothing was misappropriated as contended by the complainant, therefore, the ingredients of the Sections under the Penal Code are not attracted. He further submitted that no injury was caused to any of the horses to attract Section 11 (A) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and as the change of the shoes is normal in this field depending upon the necessity, it cannot be an act of cruelty towards the animals. He further submitted that even according to the complainant, the change of the heels was detected on the same day after transfer of the horses to the other Trainer, therefore, there was no pain or cruelty towards the animal and the resultant loss, if any, to the complainant.
5. During the enquiry by the authorities of the Hyderabad Race Club, the complain-ant gave certain answers which will indicate that there was no wrongful loss caused to him or breach of trust towards the complainant.
6. The learned senior counsel Sri. C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the respondent submitted that it is clear from the complaint averments that the high heel shoes were removed by A-l and on that account, an enquiry was conducted by the Hyderabad Race Course and found A-l guilty of misconduct and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and also suspension of licence for one month, therefore, it is a clear case of criminal breach of trust and cheating and there is a prima facie case against the accused to proceed with the investigation.
7. In the light of the above circumstances, the point for consideration is:
Whether there is any prima facie material to prosecute the accused and whether the proceedings covered by the above crime are liable to be quashed?
8. The tenor of the complainant through the allegations of the complaint discloses that the accused changed the high heel shoes of the horse 'Onnu Onnu Onnu' on the date of transfer of horses to another Trainer by name Mr. M. V. Narayana Rao and there is an apprehension in the mind of the complainant that by fixing the flat heel shoes to the above horse, the accused intended to cause harm to the horse and thereby loss to him. As it was detected on the same day, no loss was suffered by the complainant. As the change of high heel shoes at the time of transfer is against the norms and conditions of the Hyderabad Race Course, they imposed the fine and suspension of licence for one month.
9. Now, it has to be examined whether the accused committed criminal breach of trust or cheating or mischief by maiming the horses and by causing cruelty towards the animals. Before the concerned authorities of Hyderabad Race Course, when Mr. M. V. Narayana Rao was questioned whether he took over the horses and whether all horses were fine and whether they are all perfectly well, he replied 'yes'. When he was further questioned whether he specifically finds any problem with those horses and whether he has any reason to believe that any of the horses are harmed in any, way, he replied 'no'. He further replied that the horses were perfect and the horses were trotted in front of vet and they were alright and he has taken them back and further stated that he never complained about the horses. On further questioning the complainant, the enquiry authority came to a conclusion that there was no problem with the horses after he took over and at the time of showing to the Doctor or back in the stable.
10. Section 409 of I. P. C. reads as follows:
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent :- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
11. Section 420 of I. P. C, reads as follows:
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property :- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
12. Section 429 of I. P. C. reads as follows:
429. Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees:Whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox, whatever may be the value thereof, or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either, description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
13. From the reading of the above Sections, there must be misappropriation, dishonest use of the property entrusted to the accused and intentional inducement to accused to deliver any property by the complainant or by maiming the animal or cruelty towards the animal.
14. From the averments of the complaint, the high heel shoes were changed only at the time of entrustment of the horses to new Trainer and the complainant did not specify whether there is any loss suffered by him and whether there was any intention on the part of the accused to cheat him at the inception. The authorities of the Hyderabad Race Course imposed fine and suspended the licence for changing the high heel shoes at the time of transfer of the horses against the Rules, but, from the facts narrated by the complainant, there is no prima facie material to show either the accused committed breach of trust or there was any intention at the inception to cheat the complainant. In the light of the above circumstances, I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners under the above crime are liable to be quashed.
15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.