High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.3637 of 2025Prabhavathy... PetitionerVs.1. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ennore Police Station, Redhills, (Crime No.902 of 2024).2. Mageshwari Ravikumar, Member Secretary/Director, Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Anna Salai, Nanthanam, Chennai 35... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the FIR No.902 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Ms.R.ArulmozhiFor R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025O R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 902 of 2024 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023, as against the petitioner.2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner impersonated a member of the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board and forcefully pulled out 2 Lhasa apso dogs from Balaji Stores, addressed at 126/29, Kamaraj Nagar, Ernavoor, Near Murugan Kovil Back Side, Chennai 600 057. The first respondent herein registered a case in Crime No.902 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of BNS.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an honorary representative of the Animal Welfare Board of India and she has an authority to seize the animal wherever it subjected to cruelty. Further, on the basis of the information given by the local people of Ernavoor that they could not bear with the plight of 2 Lhasaapso dogs which were kept in a small bunk shop, without proper food and water, absolutely no bath and grooming, without vaccination and tied outside the shop exposed to sun and rain at night hours dumped inside the shop which has nil ventilation Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025and on holidays forced to remain inside the shop with food. Hence, the petitioner went to the aforesaid place and rescued the dogs and thereafter the said dogs were treated, groomed and vaccinated at ARK Veterinary Hospital. Subsequently, on 20.09.2024, a person from Andaman adopted the said dogs and had taken it to Andaman. He further submitted that the petitioner had rescued the uncared dogs and taken care of it and further the petitioner has been doing service to the abandoned dogs for several years out of her own funds and donations from various known friends. However, on the basis of the complaint made by one Balaji, an FIR was filed with false allegations. Hence she prayed to quash the same.4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.5. From the perusal of the records, it reveals that though the petitioner is an honorary member of Animal Welfare Board of India, she cannot be an enforcement person and cannot be entitled to take the law enforcement directorate such as rescuing the dogs from the original owner and posting on social media looking for adoption etc. Further, no records were found that the petitioner is an authorised person to seize the dogs from the custody of the Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025original owner of the dogs on the ground of cruelty. Since the petitioner without any authority or power seized the dogs and without the concern/knowledge of the original owner, the petitioner had taken away the dogs and had given adoption to flew the dogs to Andaman, the plea of the petitioner that she had rescued the dogs and cared them by doing social work, cannot be countenanced. 6.It is also seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. 7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025proceeding shall not be interdicted.8.Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :-“23. .................... vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;..............xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025known procedure;.............xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”9.In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, considering the fact that the crime is of the year 2024, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.902 of 2024 and file a final report within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. The first respondent is also directed to secure the dogs from the family living in the Andaman as early as possible and handed over the same to the original owner of the dogs.10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.28.02.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderjdPage 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.To1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ennore Police Station, Redhills,2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 202528.02.2025Page 9 of 9

Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 28.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025andCrl.M.P.No.3637 of 2025Prabhavathy... PetitionerVs.1. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ennore Police Station, Redhills, (Crime No.902 of 2024).2. Mageshwari Ravikumar, Member Secretary/Director, Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Anna Salai, Nanthanam, Chennai 35... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the FIR No.902 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Ms.R.ArulmozhiFor R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate Page 1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025O R D E RThis petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 902 of 2024 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023, as against the petitioner.2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner impersonated a member of the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board and forcefully pulled out 2 Lhasa apso dogs from Balaji Stores, addressed at 126/29, Kamaraj Nagar, Ernavoor, Near Murugan Kovil Back Side, Chennai 600 057. The first respondent herein registered a case in Crime No.902 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of BNS.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an honorary representative of the Animal Welfare Board of India and she has an authority to seize the animal wherever it subjected to cruelty. Further, on the basis of the information given by the local people of Ernavoor that they could not bear with the plight of 2 Lhasaapso dogs which were kept in a small bunk shop, without proper food and water, absolutely no bath and grooming, without vaccination and tied outside the shop exposed to sun and rain at night hours dumped inside the shop which has nil ventilation Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025and on holidays forced to remain inside the shop with food. Hence, the petitioner went to the aforesaid place and rescued the dogs and thereafter the said dogs were treated, groomed and vaccinated at ARK Veterinary Hospital. Subsequently, on 20.09.2024, a person from Andaman adopted the said dogs and had taken it to Andaman. He further submitted that the petitioner had rescued the uncared dogs and taken care of it and further the petitioner has been doing service to the abandoned dogs for several years out of her own funds and donations from various known friends. However, on the basis of the complaint made by one Balaji, an FIR was filed with false allegations. Hence she prayed to quash the same.4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.5. From the perusal of the records, it reveals that though the petitioner is an honorary member of Animal Welfare Board of India, she cannot be an enforcement person and cannot be entitled to take the law enforcement directorate such as rescuing the dogs from the original owner and posting on social media looking for adoption etc. Further, no records were found that the petitioner is an authorised person to seize the dogs from the custody of the Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025original owner of the dogs on the ground of cruelty. Since the petitioner without any authority or power seized the dogs and without the concern/knowledge of the original owner, the petitioner had taken away the dogs and had given adoption to flew the dogs to Andaman, the plea of the petitioner that she had rescued the dogs and cared them by doing social work, cannot be countenanced. 6.It is also seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. 7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is not open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025proceeding shall not be interdicted.8.Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :-“23. .................... vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;..............xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025known procedure;.............xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”9.In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, considering the fact that the crime is of the year 2024, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.902 of 2024 and file a final report within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed. The first respondent is also directed to secure the dogs from the family living in the Andaman as early as possible and handed over the same to the original owner of the dogs.10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.28.02.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderjdPage 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.To1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ennore Police Station, Redhills,2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No. 5597 of 202528.02.2025Page 9 of 9