The court clarified that mere allegations of insult or intimidation without substantial evidence do not warrant criminal charges, emphasizing on misuse of the justice system for trivial grievances.

ORDER :

(M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.)

The petitioner/accused is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.13477 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 428 , 429, 504 , 506 and 509 of the IPC and pending before the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District.

2. Heard Sri G. Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. The complainant though served long ago remained unrepresented.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

At the heart of this criminal litigation lies a wayward pet feline, named Daisy:

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant and accused is the petitioner, who stays in the adjacent apartment complex. The 2^nd respondent registers a complaint on 1-02-2022 alleging that the domesticated cat by name ‘Daisy’ went missing and it was a case of kidnapping. It is her further allegation that the cat was within the premises of the accused, and had been wrongfully confined. It is further alleged that due to kidnapping of her cat, she underwent unnecessary stress and emotional trauma due to the act of the accused/petitioner. The narration in the complaint is that the cat is an animal and no cruelty can be meted out to an animal which becomes an important issue of animal cruelty. As the cat was taken care of like her own child, this becomes a crime in Crime No.36 of 2022 for offences punishable under the aforementioned provisions. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner dropping offences under Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC , but retaining offences under Sections 504 , 506 and 509 of the IPC . Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel Sri G.Devaraj appearing for the petitioner would contend that the cat of the complainant, was jumping from house to house, through windows in the apartment complex. It was staying nowhere. It may have come to the house of the petitioner and jumped to another house. The CCTV footage that was handed over to the Police clearly demonstrated that the cat was jumping from one window to another. It never stayed in the premises of the petitioner. The complainant comes and enquires about the cat. In clear words the petitioner had told her why would he keep the cat in his premises. This has enraged the complainant, goes before the jurisdictional Police and registers a complaint for the offences punishable for criminal intimidation, breach of peace and insulting the modesty of a woman. He would contend that it is ununderstandable as to whether these offences would spring from a missing cat.

5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor though seek to defend the act of filing the charge sheet, would admit that it was a frivolous case that was projected by the complainant and the complainant does not appear before the Court to answer the contentions. He would leave the decision to the Court.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The petitioner and the complainant being neighbours along with several others, is a matter of record. The complainant claims to be the proud owner of a cat named Daisy. One fine day it goes missing, leaping from one window to another. It has jumped out from the complainant’s house, to neighbouring houses including the house of the accused. It appears that the complainant had asked about the cat getting into the house of the accused. The accused has c