"Abuse Of Process": Madras High Court Quashes Animal Cruelty FIR Against Dog-Bite Victim Accused Of Pelting Stone
The Court held that non-cognizable offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act require mandatory prior permission from the jurisdictional magistrate to register an FIR.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, Madras High Court
The Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a petitioner accused of pelting stones at a dog under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The Court held that because the alleged offence is non-cognizable under Section 31 of the Act, police failure to obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional magistrate constituted an abuse of process.
Furthermore, observing that the complaint lacked evidence of injury to the animal and was filed only after the petitioner reported being bitten by the respondent's dog, the Court deemed the proceedings a retaliatory counter-blast
The Bench comprising Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed, "Further as per section 31 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, offence under section 11 (1) (a) of the Act, it is a non cognizable offence. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have obtained prior permission to register the First Information Report for registration of non cognizable offence from the jurisdictional Court. However, the first respondent failed to do so. 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."
Advocate Ashwinkumar A appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate R.Ganesh Kumar appeared for the Respondents
A criminal original petition was filed seeking to quash the proceedings in a case arising out of the offence under Section 11 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The petitioner was walking in the street; the second respondent, with malicious intention, drove the dog to bite the petitioner, and the dog also bit the petitioner’s leg and caused severe injuries.
Therefore, the petitioner had lodged a complaint, and the same was registered by the police under Section 291 of BNS as against the second respondent.
Later, a complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2 alleging that the petitioner had pelted stones at the dog of the Respondent. After completion of the investigation, Respondent No. 1 filed the final report.
The Court noted that there was no piece of evidence produced to show that the dog sustained any injury; on the other hand, the petitioner had lodged a complaint with all medical records/photographs to substantiate that he was bitten by the dog.
"Therefore the present proceedings is nothing but a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner in Crime No.403 of 2024", the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and quashed the impugned proceedings.
Cause Title: Balaji v. State and Anr. [Crl.O.P.No.9632 of 2026]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Ashwinkumar A
Respondents: Advocate R.Ganesh Kumar