1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 571 of 2011 1. Dr. D.C. Dhasmana Professor, H.O.D., Pharmacology & Chairperson IAEC, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Jolly Grant, Dehradun Uttarakhand. 2. Dr. Pratima Gupta Member Secretary IAEC Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Jolly Grant, Dehradun …..…Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Dehradun, Uttarakhand 2. The Senior Superintendent of Police Dehradun, Uttarakhand 3. The Station House Officer Police Station Doiwala District Dehradun, Uttarakhand 4. Ms. Gauri Maulekhi C/o People for Animals Uttarakhand D-4, Chandralok Colony Rajpur Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand ……….Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Advocate, with Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. T.C. Agrawal, Addl. G.A., present for the State. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition moved under 2 Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the First Information Report registered as crime no. 78 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under section 11(1)a, 11(1)e, 11(1)h, 11(1)l , and 11(2) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 2. Heard. 3. Both the petitioners namely Dr. D.C. Dhasmana and Dr. Pratima Gupta are members of faculty of Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Jolly Grant, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. It is alleged against them by the complainant that some rabbits and rats etc., were not found kept as per regulations framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that clause (d) of sub-section (3) of section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1961, provides that the section 11 would not apply in respect of the matters dealt under Chapter IV of the Act. Chapter IV of the Act relates to the experimentation of Animals for the purpose of 3 advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of human beings, animals or plants. It is also pleaded that complainant lodged the first information report without taking approval from the Committee constituted for the purposes of Control and Supervision of Experiments of Animals (CPCSEA) as such, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to the quashed. Attention of this Court is drawn to section 31 of the Act which bars cognizance of offences in certain categories. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. Nor learned counsel for the State point out that how the FIR was got lodged in a matter which was covered by clause (d) of sub-section (3) of section 11 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, read with section 14 and section 31 of said Act. 6. In the above circumstances, and for the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is 4 allowed, and impugned FIR bearing case crime no. 78 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under section 11(1)a, 11(1)e, 11(1)h, 11(1)l, and 11(2) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, registered at Police Station Doiwala, Dehradun, is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 10.10.2011