Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Dog-Attack FIR, Sends Case Back for Trial

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated after a resident of a south Kolkata housing complex alleged he was attacked by multiple pet dogs on the rooftop of his building. Justice Uday Kumar ruled that questions surrounding dog ownership, the extent of injuries, and the owners’ alleged negligence are disputed matters that can only be resolved through a full-fledged trial.

Rooftop Chaos at Deeshari Megacity

On the evening of 26 June 2022, Dipan Banerjee claimed he was suddenly set upon by 10 to 12 unleashed dogs while on the roof of his residential block in Sonarpur. He alleged that the animals, belonging to neighbours Suman Ray and his sister Sramana Ray, caused him to lose balance and fall, resulting in injuries. The complaint led to Sonarpur P.S. Case No. 719 of 2022 and ultimately a charge-sheet under Section 289 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Suman Ray, who owns a flat in the same complex, approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the allegations were fabricated and unsupported by medical evidence.

Petitioner’s Challenge: Missing Injuries and Botched Probe

Counsel for the petitioner highlighted the injury report from Sonarpur Rural Hospital, which noted “No obvious external injury seen.” He further pointed out the complete absence of X-ray reports, the lack of CCTV footage, and the failure to seize any documentary proof of multiple dog ownership. The defence stressed that Section 289 IPC requires proof of “knowingly or negligently” omitting precautions against “probable danger to human life or grievous hurt,” and argued that no such mental element had been demonstrated.

State Defends Prima Facie Case

The prosecution countered that the charge-sheet was filed after recording statements, including that of eyewitness Nitesh Bansal, and that the investigating officer had found sufficient material to proceed. It urged that disputed facts—including the exact number of dogs, their ownership, and causation of injury—could not be adjudicated in a Section 482 application and required examination at trial.

Why the High Court Declined to Interfere

Justice Kumar emphasised that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only when allegations are “so inherently improbable, absurd, or maliciously motivated that no conviction could possibly be sustained.” The court observed that the complaint, witness statements, and charge-sheet together disclose a prima facie case of negligent conduct with respect to animals.

The judge noted that even the absence of visible external injuries does not automatically negate the offence:

> “Section 289 emphasises ‘negligent conduct with respect to animal’ and the ‘probable danger’ it may cause, not necessarily the actual manifestation of a grievous injury at the initial stage.”

The court further held that ownership disputes and the quality of investigation are matters to be tested through cross-examination rather than resolved at the quashing stage.

Key Observations from the Bench

Justice Kumar recorded several critical observations that will guide the trial court:

> “Where disputed questions of fact exist, the High Court, when exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not embark upon an inquiry to resolve them.”

> “The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly and with great caution.”

> “The allegations, as they stand, coupled with the investigation that led to the charge-sheet, do disclose a prima facie case for the alleged offences, thereby necessitating a full-fledged trial for proper adjudication.”

What Happens Next

The revisional application has been dismissed. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Baruipur is directed to proceed with G.R. Case No. 4333 of 2022 expeditiously. All interim orders stand vacated.

The ruling serves as a reminder that petitions under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to short-circuit trials merely because the defence believes the complainant’s version is weak or exaggerated. Questions of fact, including whether a pet owner breached the standard of care required under Section 289 IPC, remain squarely within the domain of the trial court.