Madras HC quashes animal cruelty case against man accused of pelting stone at dog that bit him

The Madras High Court recently quashed an animal cruelty case registered against a man accused of pelting a stone at his neighbour’s pet dog, after the dog allegedly bit and injured him [Balaji v. State].

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan found that the police had investigated the non-cognisable offence without obtaining the necessary prior permission from the jurisdictional magistrate, as required under Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one, Balaji, to quash an animal cruelty case filed against him for allegedly pelting a stone at his neighbour's pet dog.

Balaji and the dog’s owner, Devaraj Manikkam, were neighbours with a history of disputes.

Balaji alleged that Manikkam would maliciously set his dog upon him whenever he walked along the street. The dog eventually bit Balaji’s leg and caused serious injuries, prompting him to lodge a police complaint.

The Peerkankaranai police registered a case against Manikkam under Section 291 (negligent conduct with respect to an animal in one's possession) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Manikkam subsequently complained that Balaji had pelted a stone at his dog. Based on this complaint, the police registered another First Information Report (FIR) and charged Balaji under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Balaji approached the High Court to quash the case. He argued that the animal cruelty proceedings were merely a counterblast to his earlier complaint against Manikkam.

The Court noted that no evidence had been produced to show that the dog suffered any injury because of the alleged stone pelting.

Balaji, on the other hand, submitted medical records and photographs supporting his allegation that the dog had bitten him.

The Court further noted that an offence under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was non-cognisable. Therefore, the police could not register an FIR and investigate the allegation without first obtaining permission from the jurisdictional court.

However, the police registered the animal cruelty FIR, completed the investigation and filed a final report without securing such permission. The magistrate had also mechanically taken cognisance of the case and summoned Balaji without noticing the procedural defect, the Court observed.

“In view of the same, entire proceedings is nothing but a clear abuse of a process of law and the same is liable to be quashed," the Court concluded.

It, therefore, quashed the case filed against Balaji.

Balaji was represented by Advocate A Ashwinkumar.

Advocate R Ganesh Kumar appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]