The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against a driver who was booked for causing the death of a puppy by running over it with his car [Sarvesh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh]..Justice Subodh Abhyankar found that the CCTV footage of the incident clearly reflected that the petitioner Sarvesh was not aware that the puppy was sitting on the corner of the road, and thus, the intention to kill it cannot be attributed to him.“This Court is of the considered opinion that to allow the present criminal case to continue against the petitioner would only be the misuse of the process of the court as the conviction of the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the case appears a remote possibility, as it cannot be presumed that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to commit such an offence,” said the Court..The accused was booked earlier this year under Section 429 (Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees) of Indian Penal Code and Section 11 (treating animals cruelly) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for causing the dog’s death in December 2023.Seeking quashing of the FIR, it was argued that the petitioner had no intention of causing the death of the dog. The Court was told that he was not aware that two dogs were sitting on the left side of the middle of the road.When one dog ran away from the spot leaving behind the puppy, the petitioner must have been under the impression that it also had already moved from the spot, the Court was told..The Court agreed that the intention to cause the death of the dog was missing and thus, allowed the plea.Advocate Harshvardhan Pathak represented the petitioner.Advocate Vishal Panwar represented the State.[Read Judgment]
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against a driver who was booked for causing the death of a puppy by running over it with his car [Sarvesh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh]..Justice Subodh Abhyankar found that the CCTV footage of the incident clearly reflected that the petitioner Sarvesh was not aware that the puppy was sitting on the corner of the road, and thus, the intention to kill it cannot be attributed to him.“This Court is of the considered opinion that to allow the present criminal case to continue against the petitioner would only be the misuse of the process of the court as the conviction of the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the case appears a remote possibility, as it cannot be presumed that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to commit such an offence,” said the Court..The accused was booked earlier this year under Section 429 (Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees) of Indian Penal Code and Section 11 (treating animals cruelly) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for causing the dog’s death in December 2023.Seeking quashing of the FIR, it was argued that the petitioner had no intention of causing the death of the dog. The Court was told that he was not aware that two dogs were sitting on the left side of the middle of the road.When one dog ran away from the spot leaving behind the puppy, the petitioner must have been under the impression that it also had already moved from the spot, the Court was told..The Court agreed that the intention to cause the death of the dog was missing and thus, allowed the plea.Advocate Harshvardhan Pathak represented the petitioner.Advocate Vishal Panwar represented the State.[Read Judgment]