CRM No. M 13967 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 13967 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.05.2011 Ms Sonia Rogers ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Ms Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sidrath Sarup, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 58 dated 16.02.2010 under Section 289 IPC registered at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, Gurgaon. While praying for quashing of the said FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner undertakes the voluntary activity towards the community dogs in her colony. Such activity is prescribed under the Stray Animal Birth Control Rules (Dogs) 2001, a Central Government Legislation. The petitioner is carrying out the above said voluntary work under the aegis and supervision of PFA (People for CRM No. M 13967 of 2010 2 Animals), an animal Welfare organization notified under the above rules. The object of the above voluntary activity is to minimize the population of stray dogs by sterilization and regular immunization and to also prevent the spread of diseases like rabies etc. The dogs in question are partly domesticated and have integrated themselves with the human population in the colony. The petitioner is having dispute with her landlord namely Anjali Subash who is a wife of IAS Officer. Due to the influence of petitioner's landlord, certain residents in the colony who are inimical to the presence of community dogs in the colony have constantly started threatening and harassing the petitioner and her mother with physical hurt and dire consequence, if she continued to undertake the above voluntary work and wants to oust the petitioner and her mother from the rented house. On 12.02.2010, the petitioner and her mother were having their breakfast in their house at about 9 am, then some people around 17 in number forming an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit criminal house trespass after preparation for committing hurt, assault and wrongful restraint etc entered without permission of petitioner into the main gate of the house of the petitioner and started shouting abusing and threatening the petitioner and her 75 years old and ailing mother. At that time one maid servant, namely, Neha, the main servant of the petitioner was also present in the house of the petitioner who witnessed the entire incident. Two persons from the unlawful assembly namely Fufa and Sahida, the maid servants, succeeded in entering into the drawing room of the petitioner, forcibly and started assaulting and threatening the petitioner and her mother. Somehow petitioner managed to shut the drawing room to stop the forcible entry in the CRM No. M 13967 of 2010 3 house of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, also succeeded with great difficulty to get the said two maid servants out of the house. However, in this process the petitioner sustained injuries on her person and later on got the medical treatment from Civil Hospital at Gurgaon. The petitioner made complaint to the police but no action was taken rather due to the influence of her landlord being IAS Officer. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in one FIR after another. It is further contended that no offence was made out. Notice of motion was issued but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/complainant in spite of service. Reply has been filed only by the State. As per the reply, the matter was investigated and challan has been filed. Heard. It is not disputed that the petitioner is undertaking the voluntary activity towards the community dogs in her colony as is prescribed under the Stray Animal Birth Control Rules (Dogs) 2001, a Central Government Legislation. Relevant Clause No. 3 reads as under:- “3 Classification of dogs and their sterilization 1) XX XX XX XX 2) X XX XX XX 3) The street dogs shall be immunization and sterilization by participation of Animal Welfare Organizations private individuals and the local authority” The petitioner is, therefore, carrying out the said voluntary work under the provision of PFA and rather is a laudable and voluntary activity to minimize the population of stray dogs by sterilization and regular CRM No. M 13967 of 2010 4 immunization and also to prevent the spread of diseases like rabies etc. in the dogs in question. In spite of the same, the petitioner has been dragged into an unnecessary litigation by slapping a criminal case against her. The fact that the petitioner is doing the said voluntary work is evident from the certificate, issued by the authorized signatory People for Animals attached as P3. The details of dogs got vaccinated by the petitioner is attached as P4. Certificate issued by Robert G Harison, a U K based citizen for the reliable uptight member of community is attached as P5. All these facts have not been disputed either by the State or by the complainant. Besides above, no offence under Section 289 IPC is made out. Section 289 IPC reads:- 289. Negligent conduct with respect to animal Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” It has specifically been mentioned in para 10 of the petition that the petitioner does not have any pet dog. As per the allegation in the FIR ''this lady is feeding and looking after so many dogs''. Thus, no offence under Section 289 IPC can be said to be made out against the petitioner as dog in question is neither her pet dog nor petitioner has any control over the stray dogs nor the petitioner has any dog in her possession. The dog in question appears to be a stray dog. The responsibility if at all is of the State CRM No. M 13967 of 2010 5 to ensure the security of the residents of the colony. In spite of the fact that the petitioner was not at fault, she was cornered by a mob which is evident from her representation dated 15.02.2009, addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon which reads as under:- “ I Sonia Roger d/o Mr. D P Rogers, r/o D 112, Rosewood City, Gurgaon. I and my mother (75 years) were having breakfast at about 9 am when by the time my maid alarmed me that there are people in the house. I saw two servants with sticks (dandas) were just outside the bedroom and about 15 more outside my drawing room door, but inside the main gate. This people started assaulting me and my mother by the time, I had to shut the drawing room door to prevent the rest of the mob to join them. With great difficulty, I somehow managed to bolt these two as well. My mother and I were very shaken and physically hurt by this incident. We have guards in our colony; but the mob which was sent to my house was sent by RWA, so no one came to help us. I went to report this at the Sadar Police Station, but no body wanted to listen, even after they was the bruises on me, along with the medical report of the Civil Hospital, Gurgaon. I live with my mother and niece and so I was concerned about their safety and I explained it to the SHO as well but in vain . I and a resident of Gurgaon, Sharad Yadav reached the other station at an appointed time by him at 1.30 p.m on 13.02.2010 and we waited there for an hour but no one came to hear us. Sharad Yadav #9811799816. Despite our several attempts to resolve the issue amicably (We means myself, several residents of CRM No. M 13967 of 2010 6 Gurgaon, Anjali Sharma from Animal Welfare Board of India and my legal advisor Smita Jose Gautam Barat and several volunteers from Friendicoes. Mrs. Ambika Shukla from PFA People for Animals). Inspite of several attempts made by the aforesaid to speak to the SHO, Sadar; I was only called at 8 pm on 13.02.2010 to the Police Station. Upon advice from my well wishers, I decided against going as I was alone and unaccompanied. I couldn't have taken my 75 years old mother along. Ms Anjali Sharma from friendicoes and other people called up the SHO Rajeev Yadav requesting him to doct for another day. Despite all this, at 10 pm, I was informed by friends that an FIR has been lodged. I'd like to bring to your notice that if any harm were to come to me, my mother or my house, then I'd blame it on Rajeev Yadav, SHO and Mr. Sethi, Rosewood City RWA President. Even though I had complained to the Police and hour after the attacked and requested them to lodge an FIR, I was not heard to and a day later, I had an FIR lodged in my name. The RWA has barred and threatened my maid Neha and my driver Sanjay to work for me and harassment at the gate for anyone who comes to visit me. My mother is a diabetic and a cardiac patient and these happenings have only worsened her condition. RWA has asked my landlord to evict us from Rosewood City by 14.03.2010. Kindly help us and save us from the wrath of the Police and RWA and the high handedness by both. I will appreciate if you could kindly resolve this issue at the earliest.” Instead, the FIR was quickly lodged against her. The cries CRM No. M 13967 of 2010 7 of the petitioner went unheard and the mob beat up the petitioner only for doing such voluntary activity under the Stray Animal Birth Control Rules (Dogs) 2001, a Central Government Legislation which was in accordance with the rules. In the whole dispute, the State in order to absolve itself of the incident which was actually on account of the lapse on its part to control the menace of stray dogs, quickly registered the FIR against the petitioner and conveniently palmed off their responsibility/blame on the shoulder of the innocent petitioner who was doing nothing but voluntary service out of love and affection towards the voiceless animals left by the society/State to breed and grow without food and shelter on the roads. It is evident that the facts as stated above have not been disputed either by the State or by the complainant. It is also evident that no offence is made out. Thus, the FIR in the present case is nothing but a misuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 58 dated 16.02.2010 under Section 289 IPC registered at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, Gurgaon is quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 10.05.2011 mohan