High Court Decision on Animal Cruelty Case
The Madras High Court recently annulled an animal cruelty case against a man accused of throwing a stone at a neighbor’s dog following an alleged dog bite incident. In the case of Balaji v. State, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan determined that the police conducted an investigation into a non-cognisable offense without the required authorization from the jurisdictional magistrate, in accordance with Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Background of the Case
The case involved a petitioner, Balaji, who filed to have the animal cruelty charge against him dismissed. The charge stemmed from an accusation that he had thrown a stone at his neighbor’s dog. Balaji and his neighbor, Devaraj Manikkam, reportedly had a contentious history, with Balaji claiming that Manikkam would deliberately encourage his dog to attack him. This conflict escalated when the dog bit Balaji, causing significant injury and leading him to file a complaint with the police.
Legal Proceedings
The Peerkankaranai police initially registered a case against Manikkam under Section 291 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) due to negligent conduct regarding his pet. Subsequently, Manikkam filed a counter-complaint alleging that Balaji had retaliated by pelting his dog with a stone. As a result, the police charged Balaji under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Court’s Findings
Upon reviewing the case, the Court found no evidence that the dog sustained injuries from the alleged stone-pelting incident. Conversely, Balaji furnished medical evidence and photographic proof of the injuries he suffered from the dog’s bite. Critically, the Court highlighted that offenses under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act are non-cognisable. Hence, the police were required to obtain judicial permission before registering an FIR and conducting an investigation.
The police, however, neglected this requirement, proceeding with the investigation and filing a report without the necessary magistrate’s approval. The Court observed that the magistrate had erroneously taken cognizance of the case against Balaji without recognizing this procedural oversight.
More Read
Court’s Conclusion
“In view of the same, the entire proceedings is nothing but a clear abuse of a process of law and the same is liable to be quashed,” the Court concluded, leading to the dismissal of the charges against Balaji.
Balaji was legally represented by Advocate A Ashwinkumar, while Advocate R Ganesh Kumar appeared for the State. [Read Judgment]
