Madras HC Quashes Dog-Cruelty Case, Calls It Counterblast [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a Chennai resident, Balaji, accused of pelting a stone at his neighbour's pet dog under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, holding that the case was a counterblast to the petitioner's own complaint and had been registered without the prior permission required for a non-cognizable offence.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan was hearing a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking to quash further proceedings in STC No.1890 of 2025, pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, arising out of a case registered under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act on a complaint by the petitioner's neighbour, Devaraj Manikkam, alleging that the petitioner had pelted a stone at his pet dog.

The record showed that the petitioner and the second respondent were neighbours with pre-existing enmity, and that the second respondent had deliberately set his dog on the petitioner while he was walking in the street, causing the dog to bite his leg and inflict severe injuries. The petitioner had lodged a complaint over this incident, which was registered as Crime No.403 of 2024 under Section 291 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the second respondent. The case under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was registered shortly thereafter, and after investigation, the police filed a final report on which the Magistrate took cognizance in STC No.1890 of 2025.

The court held that the proceedings were nothing but a counterblast to the complaint earlier lodged by the petitioner, noting that no evidence had been produced to show that the dog had sustained any injury, whereas the petitioner had placed medical records and photographs on record substantiating that he had been bitten.

The court further held that the offence under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which carries a maximum fine of Rs.50, is a non-cognizable offence, and that the police were therefore required, under Section 174(2) of the BNSS and Section 31 of the Act, to obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate before registering the First Information Report. 

Since no such permission had been obtained before registration, investigation and filing of the final report, and the trial court had mechanically taken cognizance and issued summons without noticing the defect, the court held that "the entire proceedings is nothing but a clear abuse of a process of law and the same is liable to be quashed."

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition was allowed, the proceedings in STC No.1890 of 2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram were quashed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwinkumar A., Advocate.

For Respondent No.1: Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side).

Case Title: Balaji vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station and another, Crl.O.P.No.9632 of 2026 & CRL MP No.6830 of 2026

[Read Order]