ORDER

Date : 28-07-2022 Heard Mr. S.N. Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P.

Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned counsel for the informant.

2. By this criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Sri Haren Sarma, has prayed for quashing the FIR, dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure- 6) registered as Gorchuk P.S. Case No. 199/2021 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4763/2021) under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

3. The petitioner projects his case that he is a qualified Software Engineer and he is very fond of pet animals and had undergone a course for Dog Handling and Obedience Training Course at Cochin Dog Training Academy, Mangalathunada, via Pattimattom, Ernakulam, Kochi, Kerala, wherein he had undergone 20 days dog training and a Certificate of Achievement has been issued to the petitioner by the Director of the said Academy.

4. It is also projected that after obtaining the Certificate of Achievement, the petitioner had started a Dog Training Centre, at Dholbama, Pamohi, Gorchuk, Guwahati under the name of “Kamrup Institute of Animal Training LLP”.

Thereafter, the petitioner has obtained the Trade License, issued by the Guwahati Municipality Corporation, Guwahati on 16.08.2019 and also obtained the Certificate of Incorporation dated 05.09.2019, issued by the Central Registration Centre, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. It is projected that one of his employee, namely, Sri Diganta Das, was found was found to be negligent in his work for which was had been terminated from service on 09.01.2020 by the petitioner.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that an FIR, dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-6), was lodged by one Indira Amma, who was the Chairperson, People for Animals, Guwahati Unit, alleging that the petitioner was practicing some illegal method to train the dogs, which are against the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and further alleging the 20 dogs have already died in the name of training in the nearby area of the institution. On the basis of the said FIR, the police has registered the case as aforementioned and started investigation.

6. It is projected that the police is harassing the petitioner by asking him to submit all the necessary documents relating to the training centre of the petitioner and accordingly, all the documents have been produced before the police by the petitioner and the Investigating Officer has seized all the documents and that the petitioner was then asked to submit a certificate of Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) from Delhi. It is also projected that the petitioner had submitted an RTI application to the AWBI, Delhi asking them whether the said Board provides any such NOC/ Certificate to operate a dog training centre. The said RTI was responded to by the Animal Welfare Board of India, Delhi and it was replied that they do not issue any such certificate for dog training centre. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner possesses all requisite documents/ licenses on the basis of which, he was running and operating the dog training centre at Guwahati.

7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that investigation of the case is necessary as the offence is of serious in nature. He further submits that case diary reveals that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation and the I.O. did not produce all the documents to the I.O. with regard to the running of the dog training centre. The said allegation is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the veracity of the documents is required to be examined and must be adjudicated by the trial. 9. Considered the submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for informant and perused the case diary.

10.