Pet Owners Must Take Measures To Ensure That Animals Don't Cause Danger To Others: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Uday Kumar observed that under Section 289 of the IPC, it is the duty of animal owners or possessors to ensure their animals do not cause probable danger or grievous harm to human life. Given the serious risk posed by dog attacks, owners must take adequate measures to prevent any harm. The provision's use of "knowingly or negligently omits" points out that liability arising either from actual knowledge of the animal's dangerous tendencies or from a failure to exercise due care in its management.Brief Facts:The present revision application has been filed under section 482 of the Crimianl Procedure Code, 1973 (Code) seeking to quash a criminal case registered under section 289 read with section 34 of the IPC.On June 26, 2022, around 5:00 p.m., while he was on the roof of his residential building, Deeshari Megacity, Block 14, he was suddenly attacked by 10 to 12 pet dogs. This alleged attack caused him to lose balance, fall, and sustain injuries. The Complainant alleged that pet dogs who attacked him were not properly chained thereby rendering them free to pose a significant threat to human life. An FIR was lodged by against the owners of the dogs.Contentions:The Petitioner submitted that the complainant said in the complaint that he was attacked by 10-12 dogs whereas the petitioner only own one dog therefore it shows that there is a contradiction in the statement of the complainant. It was further submitted that the injury report dated June 26, 2022, noted “No obvious external injury seen,” and although X-rays were advised for pain in the wrist and shoulder, no such reports were submitted. This absence questions the credibility of the injury claim, a key element for invoking Section 289 IPC, which requires probable danger of death or grievous hurt.It was also argued that there is no material to show the petitioner knowingly or negligently omitted to take precautions, especially given the disputed ownership of multiple dogs. Without a discernible mental state, he asserted, the proceedings cannot be sustained. Per contra, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with extreme caution and only in rare and exceptional circumstances. The allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, thus not falling within the narrow confines of such exceptions on their face value. Observations:The court at the outset noted that before prosecuting a person under Section 289 of the IPC, two essential conditions must be met: first, the person knowingly or negligently failed to exercise control over the animal; and second, this omission posed a probable danger to human life or risk of grievous hurt.It held that Section 289 imposes a clear duty on animal owners to prevent probable danger to human life or grievous hurt. The pet owners must exercise due care and caution considering the extent of threat the dogs posed to the life of a human being. The phrase knowingly or negligently omits means that the owner or possessor was either award of the danger posed by the dogs or failed to take adequate measures to control the dogs.The court further observed that this provision penalizes negligent omission, with "negligently" being key—unlike offences requiring specific intent, it covers lack of due care. The complaint claims the dogs were unchained and roaming freely, suggesting negligence. Whether the petitioner owns the dogs or acted negligently are factual disputes.The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hasan (2018) held that mens rea in such cases must be inferred from evidence and cannot be dismissed outright at the quashing stage based solely on denial.It further said that the medical report noted no external injury; however, this does not preclude an offence under Section 289 IPC. If it is proven that the unchained dogs attacked and caused injury, it would constitute negligence under Section 289, making the owners or possessors of the dogs liable.Based on the above, it held that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, and the allegations against the petitioner are not patently false or absurd; therefore, the criminal process cannot be halted at this preliminary stage.Quashing proceedings solely due to the absence of "obvious external injury" in the medical report would be a misuse of jurisdiction. Even without visible injuries, the alleged attack and the presence of unchained dogs can establish a prima facie case under Section 289 IPC. The offence centers on negligent handling of an animal and the probable danger it poses, not the severity of injury at the outset, the court observed.The court concluded that “Quashing the proceedings at this juncture would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution based on contentious factual claims. The Trial Court is the appropriate forum to delve into the nuances of the evidence, assess witness credibility, and determine the allegations'...

Pet Owners Must Take Measures To Ensure That Animals Don't Cause Danger To Others: Calcutta High Court

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags