The court quashed proceedings against the accused, establishing that allegations did not substantiate the offence under the relevant statute.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.505 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur (Trial Court), which originates from Crime No.699 of 2019 registered by the Ollur Police Station, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 120 (l) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 ('Act', in short).

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on

12.02.2019, at around 7.00 a.m., the petitioner attempted to make his dog bite the 2^nd respondent, due to his animosity against the 2^nd respondent for filing a case against him.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure-1 FIR and Annexure-2 final report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offence under Section 120 (l) of the Act. The 2^nd respondent has filed Annexure-1 FIR only to wreak vengeance on the petitioner. In fact, the 2^nd respondent, on two earlier occasions, had got Annexures 3 and 4 FIRs. registered against the petitioner with identical allegations, which the police referred as a mistake of fact. The present crime is registered only to see that the bail granted to the petitioner in the earlier crimes are cancelled, and the petitioner is incarcerated. The allegations in Annexures 1 and 2 clearly establish the frivolity in the present crime. Therefore, Annexures 1 and 2 may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent oppose the Crl.M.C. They submit that the allegations in the FIR and final report do constitute the offence. Moreover, the grounds raised in the Crl.M.C. can be substantiated only after a trial. Therefore, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner attempted to make his dog bite the 2^nd respondent due to his previous animosity.

7. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 120 (l) of the Act, which reads as follows:

Penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order.— If any person does not take due care of pets under one’s care or control and thereby causing inconvenience to neighbours or public by carelessly letting them loose, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.

8. A reading of the above provision substantiates that, in order to attract the offence, the accused has to cause inconvenience to the neighbours/public by carelessly letting the pet under his control loose.

9. It is undisputed that the pet was on leash and was not let loose by the petitioner. The specific allegation is that the petitioner attempted to make the pet bite the 2^nd respondent. But, it is admitted that the pet did not bite the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, even if the allegations in Annexures 1 and 2 are taken on their face value, the same does not attract the offence under Section 120 (l) of the Act.

10. It is trite that the plenary powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash criminal proceedings, is expansive in nature. However, the power is not unbridled or unlimited, and has to be exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. One of the ingredients to quash a criminal proceeding is that, even if allegations in the first information report, final report or the complaint are taken at their face valu