The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR against the Petitioner for rash and negligence driving while delivering a food. This Court held that dogs are not human beings for booking the offense against the driver who accidentally hit the dog under IPC. The warning was also issued to the Police for being cautious before registering such cases and concerned officers were directed to compensate the Petitioner.
Brief Facts:
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 429 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 11(a)(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It was alleged against the Petitioner that while delivering the food, his bike hit a street dog which was walking on the street, thereby injuring the dog. Pursuant to the said incident, the complainant lodged the FIR against the Petitioner alleging the aforesaid offences.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner while undertaking his delivery job, was riding at a speed of 45 kmph, wherein, the maximum limit was 65 kmph, when suddenly a stray dog came in the front. The Petitioner had even attempted to save the dog by applying the brakes, however, the dog sustained injuries and subsequently passed away. He had placed his reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Haryana and Ors V/s. Bhajan Lal and Ors 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, to show that the Petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the said case.
Observation of the Court
This Court had observed that none of the Sections, reproduced hereinabove, applies to the facts of this case. Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code pertain to acts endangering human life and do not recognize and make an offence any injury caused otherwise than to human being. Thus, legally the said Sections have no application to the facts in hand as the essential ingredient necessary to constitute the offences is missing. In regard to the application of Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same will also have no application, inasmuch as, the essential ingredients (i.e. causing loss and damage to a person or the property), warranting application of this Section, are amiss in the present facts.
The Court also observed that the manner in which, the incident has taken place shows there was no intent whatsoever to commit the said offence. Therefore, Section 11(a)(b) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act will not apply. This Court had also warned Police to be more circumspect and cautious while filing the charge sheet for such offenses where bare perusal of these sections defies logic for the same.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR against the Petitioner who had hit a stray dog while undertaking his job and directed the State Government to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- to the Petitioner.
Case Title: Manas Mandar Godbole vs The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice PrithviRaj K. Chavan and Revati Mohite Dere
Case no.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2920 OF 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Tripti R. Shetty
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. S.S.Hulke
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
