Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Car Driver For Allegedly Killing Stray Dog, Says Mere Accident Cannot Attract Criminal Offence

The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of deliberately running over and killing a stray dog, holding that the materials on record failed to establish the “mens rea” or criminal intent necessary to attract offences under Sections 428 and 429 IPC and Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.Justice Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that the incident, at best, appeared to be “an unfortunate road accident involving a stray animal” and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of court.The Court was hearing a revision petition filed by Emon Roy seeking quashing of GR Case No. 7201 of 2022 arising out of Chatterjeehut Police Station Case No. 241 of 2022.According to the FIR, lodged nearly 26 days after the incident, a stray dog was allegedly run over by a car driven by the petitioner at Olaibibitala Lane in Howrah on December 4, 2022. The complainant alleged that the vehicle had approached “at a slow pace” and specifically targeted the dog with the intention of killing it.During investigation, two witnesses claimed before police that the petitioner had deliberately knocked down the dog and that the animal died instantly. However, the Court noted that no veterinary certificate, forensic evidence, photographic proof, or official record establishing the dog's death had been produced with the charge sheet.The Court found significant contradictions between the FIR and witness statements. While the FIR stated that the vehicle was moving slowly, witnesses claimed that the vehicle “desperately” came and knocked down the animal.The Bench held that offences under Sections 428 and 429 IPC are founded on the concept of “mischief” under Section 425 IPC, which necessarily requires intention or knowledge to cause wrongful loss or damage.“The allegation of mens rea on the part of the petitioner is not at all demonstrated and the incident can at best be an unfortunate road accident involving a stray animal,” the Court observed.The Court further held that a stray dog could not be treated as “public property” under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, nor was there any identifiable owner who suffered wrongful loss.Referring to the petitioner's residence being located only a short distance away from the spot of occurrence, the Court rejected the allegation that the car had “no business” being at the place except to kill the dog.The Bench also emphasised the unexplained delay of 26 days in lodging the complaint, holding that such delay “creates a serious doubt on the veracity, genuineness and bonafides of the complaint.”Observing that the prosecution had failed to produce any prima facie material demonstrating animus, intention, or conscious cruelty on the part of the petitioner, the Court held that the continuation of the proceedings would serve no purpose since the possibility of conviction was “bleak.”Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.Case: Emon Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.Case No: CRR 1499 of 2025Click here to read order

Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Car Driver For Allegedly Killing Stray Dog, Says Mere Accident Cannot Attract Criminal Offence

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against Car Driver For Allegedly Killing Stray Dog, Says Mere Accident Cannot Attract Criminal Offence

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers