Karnataka High Court Stays FIR Against DRDO Employees For Allegedly Removing Stray Dogs From Campus

The Karnataka High Court in an interim order on Wednesday (March 25) stayed criminal proceedings in an FIR initiated against Defence Research and Development Organisation [DRDO] employees under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, for allegedly relocating the dogs within the DRDO township at Bengaluru.

The single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna expressed shock that the State had entertained such a complaint against DRDO employees. 

“ The complaint is said to have emerged before the BBMP that some dogs, found in the premises of DRDO's 70-acre campus, were being relocated. If the dogs are being relocated by the DRDO officials inside their premises, it is shocking how BBMP would get this jurisdiction to enter the said office and register a crime invoking provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 325 BNS,” the court noted in its order. 

Senior Advocate Arvind Kamath, appearing for the DRDO employees, submitted that his clients had been made 'vicariously liable' for an alleged attempt to relocate three stray dogs by 'some unknown men' in the DRDO premises. Objecting to the FIR Kamath said that the police had invoked Section 325 of BNS [mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any animal] in the FIR disproportionately when the allegation is that the animals were relocated from the premises.

The Senior Counsel also vehemently argued that BBMP has been taking counterproductive steps in the matter of stray dogs.

Hearing this, the court enquired how the Bruhat Bengaluru Maha Nagara Palike (BBMP) could have a problem with the dogs' relocation within the premises and whether it would have a problem if the dogs were not relocated at all. The Court also orally remarked that sometimes the State has the habit of 'pinching the wrong nerve of someone' in such matters.

The Court further inquired how the BBMP could institute proceedings against the DRDO employees merely because the stray dogs were picked up from the premises of its 70-acre township.

“Dogs are found in the premises of DRDO. What's your problem?.... You should search for the dogs wandering on the streets… There are a lot of dogs in the city, but you have a problem with this?”, the Court told BBMP.

“Will find out, Your Lordship. Awaiting instructions,”, the counsel for BBMP replied to the court. The counsel also mentioned that criminal proceedings were initiated and an FIR was registered against the Estate Manager and Cleaning Supervisor of DRDO based on a complaint filed by DR. Vivek K Bidarakar, Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry.

However, the Court refused to entertain the requests made by BBMP and dictated the following:

“…. In light of the aforesaid facts, if any investigation/ proceedings are permitted to be continued against the officers of DRDO, it would become on the face of it an abuse of process of law.”

The court accordingly stayed the criminal proceedings till the next date of hearing, i.e., April 16. 

Crime No.153/2026 was registered against the accused employees on 09.03.2026 by the Mahadevapura Police Station for offences U/s 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and Section 240, 325, 270, 61(1) of the BNS 2023.

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Sahu & Anr v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 4677/2026