Delhi High Court Quashes FIRs in Neighbor Dispute Over Pet Dogs, Stresses Amicable Resolution

By Shivam Yadav • August 21, 2025

  Ansh Jindal & Ors. vs The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. - Ansh Jindal & Ors. vs The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. - Delhi High Court quashes two cross-FIRs filed by neighbors after a fight during a dog walk. Justice Arun Monga promotes settlement, imposes costs for animal welfare. Read the full order details here.

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court quashed two cross-FIRs filed by neighbors following a heated altercation during a routine walk with their pet dogs. The decision was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga on August 20, 2025, in two connected petitions-CRL.M.C. 5583/2025 and CRL.M.C. 5697/2025.

Read in Hindi

The dispute arose on February 19, 2024, when both parties lodged complaints against each other at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg. The first FIR (No. 70/2024) alleged offenses under Sections 34, 323, 341, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while the second (No. 71/2024) included Sections 34, 323, 341, and 354(B) of the IPC. The conflict began over the handling and supervision of their pets and quickly escalated into a physical scuffle.

“Truly, a case that redefines ‘for the love of dogs!!’,” observed Justice Monga, highlighting the unusual nature of the dispute.

Both parties later resolved their differences amicably through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated February 1, 2025. They appeared before the court and confirmed that they had settled the matter voluntarily without any coercion. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) to support their plea for quashing the FIRs.

Justice Monga noted that the dispute was private in nature and that continuing criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Instead, it would only reignite hostility between the neighbors. The court emphasized the importance of promoting mutual goodwill and societal harmony.

“Not quashing the criminal proceedings would rather rekindle hostility, whereas quashing the same would promote cordiality and bonhomie between the neighbours,” the order stated.

Using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (referred as BNSS in the order), the court quashed both FIRs and all consequential proceedings. However, as a measure to promote animal welfare, the court imposed costs of ₹10,000 per petition to be paid to “Unity for Stray Animal Foundation,” a dog shelter in Khera Khurd, Delhi. The parties were given one week to comply.

A compliance report has been directed to be filed. All pending applications were also disposed of.

This order underscores the judiciary’s role in encouraging out-of-court settlements in personal disputes, especially where continuing litigation may do more harm than good.

Case Title: Ansh Jindal & Ors. vs The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 5583/2025 (and connected matter CRL.M.C. 5697/2025)

Recommended