The judgment establishes that passive involvement in the commission of an offence may not be sufficient to hold an individual liable under the relevant legal provisions.

This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.03.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.361 of 2007 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act has been taken against the petitioner.

2. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of.

3. The complainant, President of Jamshedpur Animal Welfare Society, who happens to be the animal right activist fighting for the right of the mute and helpless animals, lodged a case alleging therein that since childhood, he had seen brutal killing of stray dogs at Jamshedpur. Number of occasions, authorities of TISCO Ltd., Jamshedpur were reminded to stop inhuman killing of stray dogs, but they never cared for. Rather went on catching stray dogs by the process during which collar bone of the dogs invariably got fractured resulting into their death.

4. Further it has been alleged that on the pretext of sterilizing stray dogs, they are catching stray dogs in brutal manner and in that process, dogs got injured and that they are doing so in order to save the operation cost of sterilization of stray dogs.

5. The matter was informed to the petitioner, who happens to be the President of Jamshedpur Kannel Club but he did not do anything which is indicative of the fact that he is in connivance with the officials of TISCO/JUSCO promoting killing of stray dogs.

6. On such complaint, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animal Act has been taken against the order, vide order dated 19.03.2008 which is under challenge.

7. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never been alleged to have acted in any manner in the process of killing or catching of the stray dogs, rather the allegation what has been made against the petitioner is that the matter concerning illegal activities on the part of the officials of TISCO/JUSCO of killing and catching stray dogs, was informed to this petitioner being President of Kannel Club but he did not do anything in this regard. But that allegation would not fasten the petitioner with any criminality involved in the case.

8. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the provision as contained in Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code submits that only the person, who does any act in killing or catching of the cattles, can be held responsible for the offence under Section 429.

9. Here in the instant case, no other act except the act stated above has been alleged against he petitioner so as to be charged with the allegation of killing or catching or maiming the stray dogs. Similar is the situation with respect to offence under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act which also stipulate that persons willfully or unreasonably administers any injurious drug or injurious substance or willfully and unreasonably cause or attempts to cause any such drug or substance to be taken by the animal for its killing, he would be responsible but since no allegation has been levelled against the petitioner attracting offence either under the Indian Penal Code or Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for those offences and thereby the court has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences as aforesaid.

10. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that specific allegation has been made that information with respect to killing of stray dogs were given to the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was the President of Kannel Club but he did not do anything so as to prevent it and therefore, passive involvement of the petitioner can easily be presumed.

11. Having heard learned counsel appearin