15 September 2026 Legal Updates

Madras High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Against Man Accused Of Pelting Stone At Dog That Bit Him, Finds No Evidence Indicating Dog Was Injured

Case details

• Case: Balaji v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station & Anr. (Crl.O.P. No. 9632 of 2026 & Crl. M.P. No. 6830 of 2026)
• Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
• Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

Facts of the case

• The petitioner, Balaji, and the second respondent, Devaraj Manikkam, are neighbours residing in Old Perungalathur, Chennai. The second respondent owns a pet dog. There was pre-existing enmity between the two neighbours.
• According to the petitioner, when he was walking on the street, the second respondent, with malicious intention, drove the dog to bite him; the dog bit the petitioner's leg, causing him severe injuries. The petitioner lodged a complaint, which was registered by the first respondent (police) as Crime No. 403 of 2024 for the offence under Section 291 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against the second respondent.
• Subsequently, on a complaint lodged by the second respondent alleging that the petitioner had pelted a stone at his dog, the first respondent registered Crime No. 404 of 2024 against the petitioner under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. After investigation, the police filed a final report, which was taken cognizance of by the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tambaram, as S.T.C. No. 1890 of 2025.
• The petitioner approached the Madras High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 1890 of 2025.

Contentions of the petitioner

The petitioner contended that the case registered against him under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was nothing but a counterblast to the complaint he himself had lodged (Crime No. 403 of 2024) against the second respondent for setting the dog upon him. He pointed out that no evidence was produced to show the dog suffered any injury from the alleged stone-pelting, whereas he had lodged his own complaint supported by medical records and photographs establishing that he was bitten by the dog.

Statutory provision considered

Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 penalises a person who beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures, or otherwise treats an animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering, or who, being the owner, permits an animal to be so treated. The prescribed punishment for a first offence under this provision is a fine of not less than Rs. 10, extendable to Rs. 50.

Reasoning of the High Court

• The Court found on a perusal of the records that the petitioner and second respondent were neighbours with pre-existing enmity, and that the second respondent's complaint (leading to the case under the Cruelty to Animals Act) followed the petitioner's own complaint (Crime No. 403 of 2024, under Section 291 BNS) about the dog biting him and causing him severe injuries. The Court held that the proceedings under the Cruelty to Animals Act were nothing but a counterblast to the petitioner's earlier complaint.
• The Court noted that the offence under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is a non-cognizable offence, carrying a maximum punishment of a fine extending only to Rs. 50 for a first offence.
• Since the offence is non-cognizable, the Court held that the police (first respondent) ought to have obtained prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the BNSS before registering the First Information Report. No such permission had been obtained before registration, investigation, and filing of the final report, and the trial Court had also mechanically taken cognizance and issued summons without noticing this defect.
• On facts, the Court also noted that no evidence was produced to show that the second respondent's dog sustained any injury from the alleged stone-pelting, while the petitioner had substantiated his own complaint of being bitten with medical records and photographs.
• Considering the counterblast nature of the complaint, the absence of prior permission for registering a non-cognizable offence, and the lack of supporting evidence, the Court held that the entire proceedings amounted to a clear abuse of the process of law.

Held

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed. The proceedings in S.T.C. No. 1890 of 2025, pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tambaram, were quashed. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Key legal principles established

• Where an offence under a special statute (here, Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960) is non-cognizable, the police must obtain prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the BNSS before registering the First Information Report; failure to do so vitiates the subsequent investigation and cognizance taken thereon.
• A criminal complaint that is shown, on the record, to be a counterblast to an earlier complaint lodged by the accused against the complainant, particularly amid pre-existing personal enmity, is a relevant factor in assessing whether continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
• Absence of any evidence supporting the factual foundation of a complaint (such as proof of injury to the animal alleged to have been harmed), contrasted with substantiated evidence supporting the accused's counter-version, can justify quashing of proceedings under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C.
• Courts must be alert to procedural non-compliance (such as the absence of mandatory prior permission for registering a non-cognizable offence) even where the trial Court has mechanically taken cognizance without noticing the defect.