P.S. Patacharkuchi vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2533 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010127202021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./428/2021

            HAREN SARMA
            SON OF SRI JAGADISH SARMA
            R/O SARBODOY PATH, OPP. RAJIB BHAWAN, HOUSE NO. 09, ABC, P.S.
            BHANGAGHAR, GUWAHATI-05.
            DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
            PERMANENT ADDRESS- VILL- BARBHALA SULIAPARA, P.O. GOVINDAPUR

            P.S. PATACHARKUCHI
            DIST. BAJALI, ASSAM
            PIN-781326



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

            2:INDIRA AMMA
             CHAIRPERSON
             PEOPLE OF ANIMALS
             GUWAHATI UNIT

            AMBIKAGIRI NAGAR
            KUHIRAM PATH
            R.G. BARUAH ROAD
            GUWAHATI-781024
            DIST. KAMRUP (M)
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S N KRISHNATRAYA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
                                                                         Page No.# 2/6




                                    BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                     ORDER

Date : 28-07-2022

Heard Mr. S.N. Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned counsel for the informant.

2. By this criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Sri Haren Sarma, has prayed for quashing the FIR, dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure- 6) registered as Gorchuk P.S. Case No. 199/2021 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4763/2021) under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

3. The petitioner projects his case that he is a qualified Software Engineer and he is very fond of pet animals and had undergone a course for Dog Handling and Obedience Training Course at Cochin Dog Training Academy, Mangalathunada, via Pattimattom, Ernakulam, Kochi, Kerala, wherein he had undergone 20 days dog training and a Certificate of Achievement has been issued to the petitioner by the Director of the said Academy.

4. It is also projected that after obtaining the Certificate of Achievement, the petitioner had started a Dog Training Centre, at Dholbama, Pamohi, Gorchuk, Guwahati under the name of "Kamrup Institute of Animal Training LLP".

Page No.# 3/6

Thereafter, the petitioner has obtained the Trade License, issued by the Guwahati Municipality Corporation, Guwahati on 16.08.2019 and also obtained the Certificate of Incorporation dated 05.09.2019, issued by the Central Registration Centre, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. It is projected that one of his employee, namely, Sri Diganta Das, was found was found to be negligent in his work for which was had been terminated from service on 09.01.2020 by the petitioner.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that an FIR, dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure-6), was lodged by one Indira Amma, who was the Chairperson, People for Animals, Guwahati Unit, alleging that the petitioner was practicing some illegal method to train the dogs, which are against the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and further alleging the 20 dogs have already died in the name of training in the nearby area of the institution. On the basis of the said FIR, the police has registered the case as aforementioned and started investigation.

6. It is projected that the police is harassing the petitioner by asking him to submit all the necessary documents relating to the training centre of the petitioner and accordingly, all the documents have been produced before the police by the petitioner and the Investigating Officer has seized all the documents and that the petitioner was then asked to submit a certificate of Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) from Delhi. It is also projected that the petitioner had submitted an RTI application to the AWBI, Delhi asking them whether the said Board provides any such NOC/ Certificate to operate a dog training centre. The said RTI was responded to by the Animal Welfare Board of Page No.# 4/6

India, Delhi and it was replied that they do not issue any such certificate for dog training centre. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner possesses all requisite documents/ licenses on the basis of which, he was running and operating the dog training centre at Guwahati.

7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that investigation of the case is necessary as the offence is of serious in nature. He further submits that case diary reveals that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation and the I.O. did not produce all the documents to the I.O. with regard to the running of the dog training centre. The said allegation is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the veracity of the documents is required to be examined and must be adjudicated by the trial.

9. Considered the submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for informant and perused the case diary.

10. Prima facie, it appears that the allegation is made in the FIR relates to illegal operation of dog training centre, is within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, thus, the offence is cognizable offence. Therefore, it is well settled that a police before whom an FIR is lodged, disclosing commission of cognizable offence, the police cannot refuse to register the same. If one needs any authortity on the point, one may refer to Page No.# 5/6

the case of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (1999) 8 SCC 728, and Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors, (2000) 7 SCC 640.

11. It is also mentioned that in the case of Ms. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 315, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the police has right to investigate the cognizable offence and the conclusion of Supreme Court of India is mentioned in paragraph 80 of the said judgment. It has been reiterated that quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.

12. Moreover, the petitioner has heavily placed reliance on his own documents in support of his contentions, which are the defence materials. At the stage of quashing of the FIR, the court must refrain from examining the defence materials. On a perusal of the FIR, it cannot be said that no prosecution case is made out. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the court, it would not be permissible to quash the FIR to prevent the police from investigation of cognizable offence.

13. On the face of the contents of the FIR, it is alleged that 20 dogs had died in the course of training, and that illegal methods are being used to train the dogs, hence, it cannot be said that the contents of the FIR, prima-facie, does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

14. It is also seen that investigation is not yet complete and as per the Page No.# 6/6

Investigating Officer, the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation. Hence, in view of the discussion above, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for quashing of the FIR.

15. Before parting with the record, this court has observed that the petitioner is a qualified Software Engineer and has completed dog training course. Hence, the Court is inclined to observe that the I.O. shall take note of the qualification of the petitioner and shall allow the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation by providing all the documents without fear of being arrested. Hence, the court is inclined to allow the petitioner to appear before the I.O. and place all the documents within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. The petitioner shall also provide his mobile number with the whatsapp facility as well as his e-mail account so as to enable the I.O. to call the petitioner for inquiry.

16. With the aforesaid direction and observation, this petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant