The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday quashed a criminal case accusing a Bengaluru resident of "kidnapping" his neighbour's pet cat, while admonishing the police for getting swept into the "whimsical pursuit of justice" for the cat named Daisy [Sri Taha Husain v The State of Karnataka and Another].

Justice M Nagaprasanna expressed shock over the registration of the criminal case in the matter and said that the "cat named Daisy appears to have driven every one crazy and even the criminal justice system."

"If the contents of the complaint are seen, it shocks the conscience of the Court as to how the jurisdictional Police could have registered the complaint, as there is no offence indicated in the complaint, except missing cat and alleged wrongful custody of the cat in the house of the accused," the Court said.

The judgment was passed in the case of accused Taha Husain, who was booked by police in 2022 on the complaint filed by his neighbour Nikitha Anjana Iyer. The police had earlier invoked Section 428 and 429 – mischief by killing or maiming animal – of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused but later only retained Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) against him.

The High Court in July 2024 had stayed the case against Husain after he sought quashing of the same. He had argued that "cats will get in and go out from the windows and permitting further proceedings on such a frivolous complaint for the alleged offences...would clog the criminal justice system."

However, his neighbour had said that the cat was within Husain's premises and had been wrongfully confined. She had also claimed that due to the kidnapping of her cat, she had gone "unnecessary stress and emotional trauma".

In the final verdict passed today, the Court noted that the entire police machinery had got involved in the case of a missing cat, recorded statements of neighbours, saw CCTV footage and found nothing, but still chosen to file a charge sheet.

"The summary of the charge sheet has retrospective embellishments, which even the complaint did not contain. The charge sheet narrates that abuses were hurled and sexual actions were made against the complainant. This was not even uttered in the complaint, but they form part of the charge sheet," the Court said.

The Court found that there was "not even a titter of ingredient of offence" under Section 504 and 506 IPC in the allegations against Husain. It particularly questioned how the police had invoked Section 509 of IPC against him.

"Section 509 punishes one who seeks to outrage the modesty of a woman. Whether this provision would get attracted to the ingredients of the complaint is a mystery," it said.

The Court further noted that the police should not have entertained the complaint as no offence was disclosed.

"The Police ought not to have entertained the complaint, which did not indicate any cognizable offence at the outset. As a matter of fact, the complaint does not even indicate a non-cognizable offence. But, the Police entertain the complaint ostensibly, for extraneous reasons."

The Court called the case a symptom of misuse of criminal law and remarked that if such proceedings are permitted to continue, it would be a travesty.

"It is not merely the present prosecution warrants judicial censure, it is the symptomatic misuse of criminal process, where hurt feelings or robust grievances masquerade as legal wrongs. If such frivolous grievances are allowed to blossom into a full fledged criminal trial, it would be nothing but wasting of precious judicial time and more gravely, diverting police resources from genuine grievances," it said.

Thus, the Court proceeded to quash the case against Husain. It further observed that he can sue the complainant for malicious prosecution.

"The complainant having chosen not to appear, leaves unanswered the serious nature of her false assertions. In the light of the complainant not being represented herself or through an Advocate, this Court holds its hands in permitting the petitioner to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution."

In a severe indictment of the police, the Court said,

"The Police too, deserve stern admonishing, for allowing themselves to be swept into whimsical pursuit of justice for a cat named Daisy. Cases of this nature should serve as a gentle, but firm reminder, to all the stakeholders in the criminal justice system that the law is a solemn instrument and not a toy to be played at the altar of personal pique."

Advocate Devaraj G represented the petitioner.

Advocate BN Jagadeesha represented the State.

[Read Judgment]