Madras HC quashes case against man accused of pelting stone at dog that bit him

The Madras High Court has quashed an animal cruelty case against a man who was accused of pelting a stone at his neighbour's pet dog, after the dog allegedly bit him. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan found that the police had failed to obtain mandatory prior permission before registering the First Information Report (FIR) for a non-cognizable offence, and that the proceedings were a clear counterblast to an earlier complaint filed by the accused.

A neighbourhood dispute turns violent

The case arose from a long-standing enmity between neighbours Balaji and Devaraj Manikkam. Balaji claimed that whenever he walked on the street, Manikkam would maliciously set his dog upon him. The dog eventually bit Balaji's leg, causing severe injuries. Balaji lodged a complaint with the Peerkankaranai police, who registered Crime No.403 of 2024 under Section 291 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for negligent conduct with respect to an animal.

In apparent retaliation, Manikkam complained that Balaji had pelted a stone at his dog. Based on this, the police registered another FIR (Crime No.404 of 2024) under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram took cognizance, leading to STC No.1890 of 2025.

Procedural flaw unravels the prosecution

Balaji moved the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. The court examined the legal framework governing the offence. Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act prescribes a maximum fine of only ₹50 for a first offence, making it a non-cognizable offence. Under Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the police are required to obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional magistrate before registering an FIR for a non-cognizable offence.

The court found that the Peerkankaranai police had not obtained such permission. "Therefore, even before registration of the First Information Report, the first respondent ought to have obtained necessary permission as contemplated under section 174(2) of BNSS and without obtaining prior permission , the first respondent had registered the First Information Report and also completed the investigation and filed the final report," the court observed.

No evidence of injury to the dog

The court also noted the stark contrast in evidence between the two complaints. While Manikkam's complaint alleged that Balaji threw a stone at the dog, there was no material to show that the dog sustained any injury. On the other hand, Balaji had produced medical records and photographs to substantiate his claim that he was bitten by the dog. The court described the animal cruelty case as "nothing but a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner in Crime No.403 of 2024."

Key observations

In its order, the court highlighted the procedural lapse and the counterblast nature of the case:

"Therefore, the first respondent ought to have obtained prior permission to register the First Information Report for registration of non cognizable offence from the jurisdictional Court. However, the first respondent failed to do so. In view of the same, entire proceedings is nothing but a clear abuse of a process of law and the same is liable to be quashed."

The court also remarked on the mechanical manner in which the trial court took cognizance : "The trial Court also without noticing the same, mechanically took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner."

Decision and implications

Allowing Balaji's petition, Justice Ilanthiraiyan quashed STC No.1890 of 2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram. The order serves as a reminder that even for minor offences, strict compliance with procedural safeguards is essential. Failure to obtain prior permission for non-cognizable offences can render the entire investigation and prosecution an abuse of process, liable to be struck down by higher courts.