Obstruction to feeding stray dogs in non-designated areas is not wrongful restraint under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; the F.I.R. was quashed due to lack of substantiated offences.

JUDGMENT :

Sandesh D. Patil, J.

1) Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State and learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2.

2) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Ms. Gauri S. Rao, learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.1- State and Mr. Sumit Gadade, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

3) By the present Criminal Application, the Applicant is praying for quashing and setting aside of the F.I.R. registered vide C.R. No.51 of 2025, with the Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune on 24^th January, 2025, against the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 351(1), 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “ BNS Act”).

4) As chargesheet was filed during the pendency of this Application, the Applicant sought quashing of the chargesheet and consequently, the proceeding, bearing R.C.C. No.58669 of 2025, pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Pune.

5) The case of the Respondent No.2 (Original Complainant), as evident from the F.I.R. is, that she is a resident of Flat No.C-503, Rama Melange Society, Hinjewadi Phase-3 and working at TCS; that she frequently visited Megapolis Sangaria Society, Phase 3, Hinjewadi; and that on 12^th September 2024, that she and her colleagues tried to capture a stray dog at Megapolis Mystic Society, but were unsuccessful due to lack of professional catchers and equipment. According to the Respondent No.2, one of her colleagues, Neha informed her, that the Applicant was opposing them from feeding stray dogs in the area, pursuant to which, she turned back and went to Megapolis Mystic Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the society’), and that at that time, the Applicant and some other members of the society alongwith the security guard were present on the common road between the society and the Sagarika Society. The Respondent No.2 has alleged that the Applicant objected to feeding stray dogs in the area and questioned one, Neha, whether they had permission to do so. It appears that the Respondent No.2 started recording the argument on her phone, pursuant to which, the Applicant allegedly tried to snatch her phone. Thereafter, it appears that the Respondent No.2 returned saying that the Applicant cannot stop anybody from feeding the animals in the society and that the Applicant cannot ask her (Respondent No.2) whether she has permission. The Respondent No.2 has further alleged that when she started going back towards her car, the Applicant stood in front of her car and as such prevented her form leaving the spot. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent No.2 lodged the present F.I.R., on 24^th January 2025.

6) Mr. Mohan Vishnu, learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the FỊ .R. is an abuse of process of law, as even on a plain reading of the F.I.R. as well as chargesheet, no offences can be said to have been committed by the Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Respondent No.2 and her friends were feeding stray dogs illegally in the society premises. He contended that, this feeding of dogs had caused significant nuisance and hardship to the residents of the society. He further submitted that over the past 11 months, around 40 incidents of dog bites had occurred in the society. He submitted that on 1^st September 2024, a child was bitten by a dog, resulting in injuries and that pursuant to the said incident, the father of child had filed a complaint