Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that though the man was accused of pelting stones, there was "no evidence" to show that the dog had suffered injury. On the other hand, the man had lodged a complaint to substantiate that he was bitten by the dog.

The court thus noted that before registering the case, the police should have obtained prior permission from the jurisdictional court, which the police failed to do. The court thus held that the case was nothing but an abuse of process of law and was inclined to quash it.

“Further as per section 31 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, offence under section 11 (1) (a) of the Act, it is a non cognizable offence. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have obtained prior permission to register the First Information Report for registration of non cognizable offence from the jurisdictional Court. However, the first respondent failed to do so. In view of the same, entire proceedings is nothing but a clear abuse of a process of law and the same is liable to be quashed,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Balaji, seeking to quash a criminal case registered against him by the Peerkankaranai Police Station for offences under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The allegation against Balaji was that he had pelted stones at the pet dog owned by the de facto complainant, Devaraj Manikkam.

The court noted that, as per records, Balaji and Manikkam were neighbours and had previous enmity between them. The court noted that when Balaji was walking in the Street, Manikkam used to drive the dog with malicious intent to bite Balaji. Balaji had also suffered severe injuries due to the dog bite. Balaji had also lodged a police complaint against Manikkam and the same was pending. The court thus opined that the present case was nothing but a counterblast to Balaji's case.

The court also noted that the offence under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was a non-cognisable offence with maximum punishment of Rs 10 fine, which may extend to Rs 50.

The court thus noted that even before registration of FIR, the police should have obtained necessary permission under Section 174(2) of the BNSS. The court noted that the police had registered the case without obtaining prior permission, filed the final report, and the trial court, without noticing the same, had mechanically taken cognisance and issued summons.

Thus, the court was inclined to allow the plea and quashed the criminal case.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Ashwinkumar A

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu