The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 25) quashed criminal proceedings against a senior citizen whose 10 Golden Retrievers allegedly attacked a lawyer on his way to court, questioning “which court was open” on the Sunday when the alleged incident took place.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the complaint was “so vague” and the police action “so cryptic” that the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the senior citizen after the pendency of the criminal case prevented her from renewing her passport. She had been booked under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code (negligent conduct with respect to animals).

According to the lawyer's complaint, the incident took place on November 28, 2021, when he was allegedly on his way from his office to attend court proceedings. He claimed that when he took out his motorcycle and reached in front of a Café Coffee Day outlet, 10 dogs attacked him and prevented him from attending court.

The Court, however, noted that November 28, 2021 was a Sunday.

“On a Sunday which court was open for the complainant to attend the court, which was stopped allegedly by dogs owned by the petitioner attacking him is a mystery,” the Court asked at the outset.

It questioned why the police had proceeded to investigate and file a chargesheet without first ascertaining whether the date mentioned in the complaint was a working day for courts.

"The police ought not to have registered crime at the asking of a person as the allegation is he was stopped from attending the court proceedings," it said.

The Court also pointed out several inconsistencies between the complaint and the chargesheet. While the complaint allegedly stated that 10 dogs had attacked the lawyer, the chargesheet referred to five dogs. The Court further noted that while the complaint stated that the lawyer had run away, the chargesheet contained embellishments concerning the incident.

"The complaint is bald and cryptic and the action of police is also so cryptic that it sans countenance," it remarked.

Justice Nagaprasanna said such cases end up clogging the criminal justice system by consuming police and court resources despite not warranting registration of a criminal case in the first place.

The Court held that allowing the proceedings to continue under Section 289 IPC would be a “better illustration” of abuse of the process of law and accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

The petitioner had approached the High Court after the pending criminal case was flagged by passport authorities, preventing her from renewing her passport. She claimed that she was unaware of the complaint until the passport renewal process brought it to her attention.

Her counsel, Advocate Vaishali Hegde, had argued that the complaint was manifestly frivolous and constituted an abuse of the process of law. She had also pointed to alleged discrepancies concerning the date of the incident, the number of dogs involved and the timing of the police spot inspection, which was allegedly conducted nearly five months after the incident.

The High Court had earlier termed the case as 'prima facie frivolous', observing that such cases have prevented regular cases from proceeding. 

Case Title: Sangeetha Mehrotra vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No.: CRL.P No. 9793/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 315