'Animals Are Not Chattels': Karnataka High Court Quashes Order Returning Rescued Dogs To Alleged Abuser

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while quashing the magistrate's order dated April 25, directed that the dogs- including six Golden Retrievers and three Shih Tzus- currently in the custody of animal welfare organizations, shall continue to remain there pending trial and completion of investigation.

“…The measure of a civilised society is often reflected not merely by how it treats its humans but as to how it extends mercy and justice to voiceless creatures that inhabits this shared world. Therefore, every act of cruelty against an animal is not merely an injury to a sentient being, but a blemish upon the collective human conscience... Protection of animal life is not therefore charity... it is an affirmation of constitutional morality and the recognition that the arc of justice must extend to even those who can't knock at the doors of the court..”, the court underscored in its order today.

The impugned order 'shocks the conscience of the court', the single judge bench opined. The Court orally noted that the visuals depicted the owner of the dogs repeatedly beating every dog and has treated those dogs like chattels that he can deal with as and how he wants.

"… Before I say Omega to this order, it would not be inept to refer that though animals are bereft of human speech, they are not bereft of sentience, suffering and the capacity to experience pain. The law, in its civilisational wisdom, has long ceased to view animals as mere chattels existing solely for human utility. The law now recognises animals also to be living beings entitled to dignity, compassion and protection from cruelty”, the court continued.

The Court observed that the Magistrate had lost sight of the fact that ethical treatment of animals is imperative. Moreover, the CCTV videos and photos depicting the owner repeatedly beating the dogs made the release order 'preposterous', the court added.

“In the teeth of the videos and photos, it is not understood as to how the concerned court could pass an order directing the custody of dogs to the perpetrator of the crime,” the Court remarked further.

The development comes in a plea moved by PETA. The high court had on May 21 stayed the magistrate's order and extended the stay order's operation later.

The case pertains to six Golden Retrievers and three Shih Tzus rescued by the Peenya Police on February 18 in PETA's complaint. An FIR was registered under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act and Sections 325 (killing or maiming an animal) and 62 (attempt to commit cognizable offence) BNS.

PETA alleged that it had several complaints in February 2026 that one Ramesh N was subjecting the dogs in his possession to repeated heinous assault, such as daily beatings with sticks and pipes. He was accused of illegal breeding without mandatory registration.

The dogs were rescued on February 18, 2026, and initially placed under the care of animal welfare organisations including Charlie's Animal Rescue Centre (CARE), Compassion Unlimited Action Plus (CUPA), and Safescape Foundation. According to the plea, 7 out of the 9 dogs have already been adopted by other families, while two remain under CUPA's care.

R2 dog owner filed an application before the concerned court under Sections 497 and 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking the release of the dogs from PETA's custody to his interim custody pending disposal of the case. The Magistrate, thereafter, had allowed the application and directed that the dogs be returned to the original owner.

Challenging the Magistrate Court's order, PETA vehemently contended that the concerned court, despite grave allegations against the owner, had directed the release of the dogs in favour of the perpetrator.

The respondent's counsel denied the allegations, stating that the respondent lives alone and has brought up nine dogs, taking care of them well. It was submitted that the dogs are healthy with him and that all allegations are false stories concocted by PETA.

The respondent also raised serious objections to the manner in which the complaint was registered. It was also submitted by the owner that the relinquishment deed was without the respondent's signature, and that PETA representatives had allegedly affixed his signature and then notarized the document.

Case Title: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: Crl.P. No. 7003/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 216