The Calcutta High Court, in a recent judgment by Justice Uday Kumar, reiterated the responsibility of pet owners to ensure their animals do not pose any threat to public safety. The case involved a criminal revision application seeking to quash proceedings under Sections 289 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with negligent handling of animals leading to probable danger to human life or grievous hurt.
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by a resident of Deeshari Megacity, who alleged that on June 26, 2022, around 5:00 p.m., he was attacked by 10 to 12 pet dogs while on the rooftop of his residence. He claimed to have fallen and sustained injuries because the dogs were left unchained and roaming freely. The FIR was registered against Suman Roy and his sister, who were accused of owning the dogs.
Read Also:- Calcutta High Court: Patent Denial Without Scientific Proof on Moral or Health Grounds Is Invalid
Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against both under Section 289/34 IPC. The petitioner argued that he owned only one dog, contradicting the complainant’s account, and pointed to the absence of serious injuries as recorded in the medical report.
Court's Observations
Justice Uday Kumar clarified that Section 289 IPC criminalizes the negligent or knowing omission by an animal owner to take adequate steps to prevent danger. It is not necessary for grievous hurt to have actually occurred; the probable danger is sufficient to attract the section.
"Negligent conduct with respect to animal is punishable not only when actual injury occurs but also when there is probable danger to human life or grievous hurt."
Read Also:- Calcutta High Court Grants Relief to Teachers Over Protest Clash with Police
The injury report did state “no obvious external injury,” but the complainant did report pain and was advised X-rays, which were not submitted later. The Court held that the lack of visible injury did not nullify the threat posed by the alleged attack.
Disputed Facts Not Grounds for Quashing
The petitioner argued that the investigation was flawed—citing lack of CCTV footage, absence of direct eyewitnesses, and no proof of owning multiple dogs. However, the Court held that these were disputed facts to be examined during the trial, not at the revision stage.
"Quashing the proceedings at this juncture would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution based on contentious factual claims."
Read Also:- Calcutta High Court Rules Arbitrator Is Right Authority for Interim Relief During Arbitration
The Court emphasized that mens rea (mental state) in negligence cases can be inferred from evidence and does not need to be explicitly proven at the outset. Whether the accused knowingly or negligently failed in their duty can only be assessed during the trial.
Conclusion and Direction
The High Court refused to quash the proceedings and directed the trial court to continue the case without being influenced by any preliminary observations. The judgment stressed the legal duty of animal owners to maintain control over their pets and avoid exposing others to harm.
“A pet owner must take due care and caution, especially if the animal has the potential to cause injury or panic. Section 289 IPC imposes a clear duty to prevent probable danger.”
Case Title: Suman Ray @ Suman Roy -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case Number:CRR 4428 of 2022
Judgment Date: 23/05/2025
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranojoy Chatterjee Mr. Tamal Singha Roy
For the State : Mr. Rudradipta Nandy Ms. Sonali Das
