ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

“Wherefore, the above named petitioner most respectfully prays this Hon’ble court be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.21/2018 of respondent Vijayanagar Police registered on the basis of offences punishable under section 134(A & B) and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act and Section 279, 428 and 429 of IPC, which is pending on the file of Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, at Bengaluru in c.c.no.5016/2018, in the ends of justice”.

2. On 24.02.2018, when the complainant’s mother had taken her pets for a walk as per her routine, a Fortuner SUV vehicle hit one of the pet dogs. The complainant’s brother-in-law and sister took the pet dog - Memphi to a Veterinary Clinic. But the pet dog was declared dead. The incident having occurred between 8.15 to 9.00 p.m. on 24^th February 2018, the complainant upon hearing the same from his mother, had called the police helpline who sent two policemen to the spot who verified what had happened and thereafter the complainant registered a complaint with the Vijayanagara Police Station in Crime No.21/2018 against the driver of the Fortuner car bearing Registration No.KA-02-MJ-5669 for offences punishable under Section 134(A & B) and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, M.V.Act) and Sections 279, 428, 429 of IPC.

3. The investigating officer conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for offences under Section 134(A & B) and 187 of M.V.Act, and Sections 279, 428, 429 of IPC. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that:

4.1. The petitioner is innocent of any criminal offence. There is no mens rea on part of the petitioner to cause injury or harm to the pet dog. The said dog being on the road while the petitioner was driving has resulted in the accident.

4.2. The offence under Section 429 of IPC could be made out only in those cases where there is a deliberate attempt by an accused committing mischief which requires an animus to do something. In the present case, the petitioner having no intention or animus of either killing, maiming or rendering useless the pet dog, no offence under Section 429 of IPC can be said to be made out.

4.3. the petitioner and owner of the pet are not known to each other. The petitioner and the pet dog were not known to each other. Therefore, there was no enmity or any reason for the petitioner to have caused harm to the said pet dog.

4.4. The accident has taken place in a public road. The complainant has not averred or alleged any particular grudge on part of the petitioner with the owner of the dog. Hence, Section 428A of IPC would also not be applicable.

4.5. As regards, the offence under Section 279 of IPC, he submits that the same would apply only in the case of an accident involving a human being and does not apply to an accident involving any animal, including a pet dog. As such, no offence under Section 279 of IPC is made out.

4.6. Similar is the submission in respect of the offence under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is not applicable to an animal. As such, the charge sheet laid as regards the offences under the aforesaid provisions is contrary to the applicable law.

4.7. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P, 1996 Crl.L.J 369 more particularly Para 11 which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

11. On a reading of the impugned judgment and the other documents on record it is apparent that it was only accidental that the truck of the applicant hit the bullock cart of the deceased as a result of which the buffalo and the driver of the bullock cart died. Another person, Pooran Singh, who was sitting in the bullock cart also sustained injuries. It was not the allegation in the first information report that the accused had grudge