The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of intentionally running over a stray dog in Howrah, holding that the prosecution failed to establish any clear criminal intent or cruelty.
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that the materials collected during investigation pointed more towards “an unfortunate road accident” rather than a deliberate act of targeting the animal.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR registered at Chatterjeehut Police Station in 2022 after a complainant alleged that a stray dog was deliberately run over by a slowly moving car near Olaibibitala Bylane in Howrah. The police later filed charges under Sections 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. His counsel argued that the complaint was lodged nearly 26 days after the incident without explanation and that there was no forensic or medical evidence proving either intentional cruelty or even the dog’s death.
It was also argued that the vehicle was moving slowly through an L-shaped blind corner, suggesting an accidental collision rather than a deliberate act. The defence further pointed out that the accused lived close to the spot, contradicting the allegation that he had come there only to kill the animal.
The High Court closely examined the ingredients required for offences under Sections 428 and 429 IPC and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The bench noted that offences of “mischief” under the IPC require intention or knowledge to cause wrongful loss or damage. The court found no material showing any previous grudge, animosity, or deliberate targeting of the stray dog by the accused.
Justice Mukherjee observed, “In absence of mens rea the offence of mischief under section 428 or 429 IPC cannot be made out.”
The court further said that merely alleging the vehicle was moving slowly could not automatically establish criminal intent. It also found contradictions between the FIR and witness statements regarding the manner in which the vehicle approached the spot.
On the allegation of cruelty, the bench held that Section 11(1)(a) of the 1960 Act also requires proof of intentional or conscious cruelty. The court said the prosecution had failed to produce veterinary records, forensic proof, or any reliable material establishing deliberate infliction of pain.
The judge additionally noted that the unexplained 26-day delay in filing the complaint raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s version.
Allowing the criminal revision petition, the High Court held that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law.
“The incident can at best be an unfortunate road accident involving a stray animal,” the court observed while concluding that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were missing.
Accordingly, the court quashed GR Case No. 7201 of 2022 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.
Case Details
Case Title: Emon Roy vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.
Case Number: CRR 1499 of 2025
Judge: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Decision Date: May 22, 2026
