Ms. Sonia Rogers v. State of Haryana & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Kshitij Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana for respondent No. 1 -State **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 54 dated

13.02.2010 under Sections 289/506 IPC, registered at Police Station, Gurgaon Sadar, Gurgaon. The allegation against the petitioner is that a dog gave bite to Savita who is maid of the neighbourer of the petitioner. The petitioner is a social worker and feeds and take care of the animals. The dog in question does not belong to the petitioner. FIR was lodged on the statement of the complainant on the allegation that she was bit by a brown dog. The negligence was attributed to the petitioner to whom the dog belonged. The petitioner is resident of D-112. After investigation, challan was presented against the petitioner. The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR on the ground that petitioner has been falsely involved in the case. Crl. Misc. No. M-15255 of 2010 (O&M) -2- On notice, a reply has been filed by the State. As per reply, challan has been submitted in the Court of ld. ACJM, Gurgaon on

03.03.2010 against the petitioner after completing the investigation. During investigation, the incriminating evidence came forth against the petitioner. The matter is now fixed for arguments on charge for 13.12.2010. The petitioner can take all the pleas at the time of framing of charge. During investigation, it has been found that the dog had come out of the house of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was found to be responsible and offence under Section 289 is made out against the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After registration of the FIR, challan was presented against the petitioner under Section 289 IPC which reads as under:- “289. Negligent conduct with respect to animal- whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extent to one thousand rupees, or with both. Ingredient of offence-The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 289 are as follows:- 1)The accused was in actual possession of animal in question; 2) The accused omitted to take sufficient precaution therewith to guard against probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt; 3) The commission of the accused was negligent or with knowledge of the probable danger.” The petitioners case is that she is a volunteer worker. She has Crl. Misc. No. M-15255 of 2010 (O&M) -3- further stated that feeding and sterlization of stray dogs is a volunteer service and is for the welfare of the society. The petitioner is doing activity of landing to community dogs in her colony and the object of her voluntary activity is to minimize the population of stray dogs by sterilization and regular immunization and to also prevent the spread diseases like rabies etc. Reference is being made to Central Government Legislation i.e Stray Animal Birth Cotrol Rules (Dogs) 2001. The relevant clause No. 3 is reproduced hereunder:- 3) Classification of Dogs and their sterilization:- (1) (2) (3) x x x x x x x x x x the street dogs shall be immunization and sterilization by participation of Animal Welfare Organization, private individuals and the local authority. The parameters set out in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 (1), S.Khusboo vs. Kanniamal and another, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 793 and Som Mittal vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 574 are applicable for quashing of the F.I.R in the present case By providing regular immunization to the street dogs, there is no threat to the life or limb of the residents. On the other hand, it prevents the spread of disease etc in the society. The presence of street dogs in the house of the petitioner will not amount to actual possession of the animal, as contemplated under Section 289. So, the offence under Section 289 Cr.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner . The factual position is that the petitioner is voluntarily looking after the street dogs. Crl. Misc. No. M-15255 of 2010 (O&M) -4- This Court is of the view that continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of Court. The petitioner is a social worker and is taking care of street dogs. She gets the street dogs vaccinated and sterlized for the welfare of the society. A copy of certificate issued by authorised signatory “People for animals” is Annexure P3. The glance at a certificate shows that that petitioner is a bonafide member of people for animals and she feeds and takes care of the animals in her area. She has been instrumental in getting several dogs of the area sterilized and vaccinated. The petitioner has been engaged in this work for the last many years and her efforts deserved to be encouraged and they beneficial to both human and animals. The Delhi High Court has recently stated that those who feed needy animals perform a most useful duty to society as this facilitates the Municipal Animal Birth Control Programme. The Gurgaon Municipal Commissioner had issued a similar directive FIR No. 54 dated 13.02.2010 under Sections 289/506 IPC, registered at Police Station, Gurgaon Sadar, Gurgaon is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua petitioner. The petition is allowed. May 16 , 2011 G.Arora (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE