IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Revati Mohite Dere, Prithviraj K.Chavan, JJ.
Manas Mandar Godbole – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 2920 of 2021
Decided On : 20-12-2022
Animal Cruelty - Quashing of FIR - Ss. 279, 337, 429 of IPC; Sec. 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Sec. 11(a)(b) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a delivery partner, was alleged to have hit a street dog while riding his bike, resulting in injuries to the dog and himself. The FIR was registered for alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Motor Vehicles Act, and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that none of the sections applied to the facts of the case, as the essential elements necessary to constitute the offences were not met. The court also criticized the police for non-application of mind in applying the sections to the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the sections of the Indian Penal Code, Motor Vehicles Act, and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to the incident involving the petitioner and the street dog.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles from the State of Haryana and Ors V/s. Bhajan Lal and Ors case, emphasizing that the uncontroverted allegations and evidence did not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR and the proceeding before the Metropolitan Magistrate were quashed and set aside. The State Government was directed to pay costs to the petitioner, to be recovered from the concerned officers responsible for lodging the FIR and approving the chargesheet.
JUDGMENT
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent -State.
3. By this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR bearing C.R. No. 84 of 2020 registered with the Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 429 of the Indian Penal Code; Sec. 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sec. 11(a)(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and consequently, the proceeding pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, being C.C.No. 114/PS/2021.
4. Perused the papers. The petitioner, aged 20 years, is a final year student of Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication. At the relevant time, he was 18 years of age and was working as a delivery partner in Swiggy. The petitioner's role was to deliver food and to meet his time commitments. The incident took place during the national lockdown of 2020, when the petitioner was delivering an order at the relevant time. It is alleged that the incident took place on 11/4/2020 at about 8.00 p.m. when the complainant was feeding stray dogs at Marine Drive. The complainant has alleged that at about 8.00 p.m., she saw the petitioner at Abasaheb Garware Chowk, N.S.Road, Marine Drive, riding his bike. She has alleged that the petitioner's vehicle i.e. his bike hit a street dog which was walking on the street, thereby injuring the dog. She has alleged that the dog got injured and fell unconscious and the petitioner's bike skid about 40 meters and the petitioner also fell down and got injured. Pursuant to the said incident, the complainant lodged the aforesaid FIR, as against the petitioner alleging the aforesaid offences.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while undertaking his delivery job, was riding at a speed of 45 kmph, wherein, the maximum limit was 65 kmph, near Marine Lines, when suddenly a stray dog came in the front. He submits that in an attempt to save the dog, the petitioner suddenly applied brakes of his bike and veered to the side, however, unfortunately the dog also moved to the same side, and that in the process, the petitioner fell down and the dog sustained injuries and subsequently passed away.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that taking the case as it stands, no offences as alleged is made out against the petitioner. Learned Counsel relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Haryana and Ors V/s. Bhajan Lal and Ors, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 to show that the petitioners's case is squarely covered by the said case, warranting quashing of the same.
7. Learned APP opposes the petition.
8. Perused the papers. The relevant Ss. applied, read thus;
"Ss. 279, 337 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code. Sec. 279 - Rash driving or riding on a public way - Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Sec. 337 - Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others - Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Sec. 429 - Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees - whoever commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming o
AI
animals’ well-being and welfare have been statutorily recognized under Section 3 and Section 11 of the PCA Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and....
The mere use of abusive language does not constitute obscenity under IPC unless it arouses sexual thoughts; allegations of rash driving and obstruction of duty were upheld.
A driver cannot be held criminally liable for an accident caused by an unforeseen event without evidence of negligent or rash conduct. The absence of mens rea precludes criminal liability under IPC s....
FIR for pandemic restriction violations under IPC Sections 269, 270, 188 quashed due to non-compliance with CrPC Section 195 requiring written public servant complaint, insufficient evidence, no infe....
Point of Law : Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent powers of the court to advance the cause of justice. Under Section 482 the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be exerc....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.