The Bombay High Court recently quashed an FIR against a Swiggy delivery executive who had accidentally mowed down a stray dog while delivering a food parcel. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 on the State for filing the case.
The bench, in an order that was pronounced on December 20, stated that the cost be collected from the salaries of the officials who “defied logic” by booking the accused under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 449.
‘Owners may treat a dog as their child but pets aren’t human beings’, Bombay HC observed while quashing the FIR
The provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) penalising rash driving and endangering life would not apply in a case where an animal is a victim, the division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan held. The court added that the owners may treat dogs and cats as their children, but pets aren’t human beings; hence, a person cannot be booked under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC.
“While Section 279 speaks about whoever drives any vehicle so as to endanger human life, Section 337 speaks about endangering human life. No doubt, a dog/cat is treated as a child or as a family member by their owners, but basic biology tells us that they are not human beings. Sections 279 and 337 pertain to acts endangering human life, or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person,” the bench held.
Given that the State police had filed the said charges despite the fact that no offence had been disclosed, the judges ordered the State Government to pay the petitioner 20,000 in costs. The cost must be recovered from the salary of the officers responsible for filing the FIR and later approving the filing of the chargesheet, the court said.
The court also said that according to the facts presented in the case, the petitioner, Manas Godbole, now in the final year of his Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication, was 18 years old at the time of the incident. He was on his way to deliver a food parcel. The complainant was feeding stray dogs on the streets of Mumbai’s affluent Marine Drive neighbourhood. The dog suddenly came in front of the motorbike of the applicant, due to which, it hurt itself and eventually died. In the collision, the petitioner also fell down and injured himself.
The complainant then filed a complaint against the delivery boy. Based on the complaint, the police lodged a first information report (FIR) against him invoking Sections 297 (rash driving), 337 (endangering human life) and 429 (Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc. of any value) of the IPC and section 184 (driving dangerously) of the Motor Vehicles Act and section 11A and B (treating animals cruelly) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The Bench noted that the petitioner had no intention of killing the dog that suddenly crossed the road and came in front of his bike.
“Nothing is shown by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was driving beyond the speed limit stipulated on the said road. The incident shows that the dog crossed the road, as a result of which, the petitioner’s bike, due to sudden braking, skidded and as such the petitioner sustained injuries. The dog also got injured and later succumbed to the same,” the bench noted.
As a result, no offences as charged in the FIR are made out against the petitioner, and the same cannot be sustained in law, the HC bench opined while it chastised the police for filing the FIR “without applying its mind.”
“How Sections 279, 337, 429 could have been applied to the case in hand, even from a bare perusal of these Sections, defies logic. The police being the custodian of law, need to be more circumspect and cautious whilst registering FIRs and of course later, whilst filing chargesheet,” the bench held, as it quashed the FIR against the Swiggy delivery executive.
