Criminal Misc.-M No.7586 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 30, 2008 Shanti Devi & another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Strange are the ways of police. This is a case where complainant, who happens to be a Constable, has succeeded in getting an FIR registered against his neighbour for keeping a dog. This Court is rushed with the petitions seeking direction for registration of cases where even human lives are lost but the police Criminal Misc.-M No.7586 of 2008 : 2 : would refuse to register an FIR or to properly investigate the same. Complainant, who is a Constable in this case, has obviously been favoured by his peers including his superiors for getting this false and frivolous FIR registered, which does not disclose any offence. Respondent No.2 complains that petitioner, Dimple, is staying opposite to his house and has kept 8 to 10 dogs. These dogs are stated to be of very bad breed and have tried to bite his children. On the asking of the complainant, SHO Harmeek Singh and Additional SHO Kulwant Singh inspected the spot and spoke to petitioner, Dimple. The complainant has also approached S.D.M., Barnala, for taking action. The complainant also makes an allegation that petitioner, Dimple, had advanced threat to him for levelling false allegations. The impugned FIR under Sections 336, 289, 290 IPC has accordingly been registered on 16.2.2008. What an abuse of process of Court and law by a Constable, who is supposed to be a protector of law?. There is no allegation in the FIR that the dogs, even if kept by the petitioners, had bitten any of the person in the locality or children of the complainant. The allegation in the FIR is that the dogs had tried to bite the children of the complainant. How the provisions of Section 336 IPC would be attracted in this case, apparently is beyond comprehension. Section 336 IPC punishes an act done by a person which is rash or negligent and which endanger the human life or personal safety of others. Keeping a dog can certainly not be termed as an act which is rash or negligent and such which would endanger human life. The action of the S.H.O. in registering this FIR is Criminal Misc.-M No.7586 of 2008 : 3 : certainly an abuse of the process of the Court. The other offences alleged are under Sections 289 and 290 IPC. Section 289 IPC provides that whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, then he is to be punished as prescribed in the Section. There is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioners had knowingly done anything or negligently omitted to take any order with respect to dogs, which had caused danger to human life etc. Merely keeping dogs, which are of bad breed, would not reveal an offence under Section 289 IPC, unless it could be shown that the petitioners had negligently omitted to such order which has resulted in endangering the human life or probability of causing a grievous hurt. Section 290 IPC is a residuary Section and makes any public nuisance as an offence, which is not otherwise made punishable under the Code. Once allegation of nuisance is not made in the FIR, this Section would also not be attracted in any manner. Apparently, this FIR has been registered by the police because complainant happens to be a Constable. It is nothing but an abuse of process of law by police. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations made in the FIR, SHO of the concerned Police Station was summoned. He was asked to explain as to what offences would be made out from the allegations in the FIR but he could not say a word in this regard. He took time to make amends. Today, another Police Officer has appeared, who now has taken over as SHO of the concerned Police Station. He seems to be ignorant about Criminal Misc.-M No.7586 of 2008 : 4 : everything and still wants to continue with the investigation. He is conniving with the Constable to abuse the process of Court and law to harass a innocent citizen. The present proceedings and registration of FIR, as such, is nothing but an exercise of abuse of powers by the police, which can not be allowed to continue. The petition is accordingly allowed. The FIR and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. The S.S.P. of the concerned District would look into the case and officers and would find out as to why and on what consideration this FIR was registered and if there was any motive on the part of SHO of the concerned Police Station to act in the manner he did, if he finds that the action on the part of the SHO and other police officers investigating the case was not bonafide exercise of powers, then this may be reflected in their confidential reports. October 30, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE