On 18th December, the Bombay High Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings against a Pune housing society resident, identified as Ayyappa Swami, who had objected to stray dog feeding at sensitive locations inside a residential society.
The Court stated that such conduct does not amount to wrongful restraint under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The judgment, pronounced by a two judge bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh D Patil, was reserved on 20th November. OpIndia accessed copy of the judgment in the matter.
What the case was about
The case originated from a dispute at Megapolis Mystic Society, located in Hinjewadi Phase 3, Pune. The second respondent in the case, Rushali Purushottam Gupta, claimed that on 12th September 2024, she was stopped by Ayyappa Swami while feeding stray dogs in the area. Notably, Rushali was not a resident of the society. She claimed that when she began recording the argument, her phone was nearly snatched and that Ayyappa later stood in front of her car to prevent her from leaving.
Over four months after the incident, she registered an FIR on 24th January 2025 under Sections 126(2), 351(1), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), claiming wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation. A chargesheet was also filed during the pendency of the quashing petition filed by Ayyappa in the Bombay High Court.
Safety concerns flagged by residents
Ayyappa told the Court that he stopped her from feeding the stray dog out of safety concerns. He pointed out that there had been nearly 40 dog bite incidents within the society over the preceding 11 months. On 1st September 2024, a child was reportedly bitten by a stray dog inside the society premises, and a police complaint was filed in the matter by the child’s father.
Furthermore, the Court was informed that the residents had submitted a joint representation to the society management highlighting the risks posed by stray dogs, specifically near the school bus stop, footpaths, and main entry and exit points used by children.
Notably, a complaint was registered by Ayyappa against Rushali on 12th September 2024 itself, alleging abuse and threats against the petitioner. When no FIR was registered, a non cognizable report was recorded on 12th January 2025. All this happened before Rushali filed the FIR against Ayyappa.
Court’s findings
The Bombay High Court held that wrongful restraint requires voluntary obstruction that immobilises a person from proceeding in a lawful direction. Preventing stray dog feeding in non designated areas, particularly near school bus stops and entry and exit points, was held to be a safety measure and not an illegal obstruction.
Furthermore, the Court found the allegation that Ayyappa blocked Rushali’s car to be vague, as there was no clarity on whether the vehicle was moving or stationary.
The bench, in its judgment, relied on the Supreme Court’s observations on the dangers posed by unregulated stray dog feeding and noted that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, envisage designated feeding areas.
FIR termed abuse of process
The Court noted that there was a four month delay in lodging the FIR and that there were earlier complaints by Ayyappa against Rushali. The Court held that the criminal case appeared to be a counterblast by the respondent against Ayyappa.
The Court called the FIR against Ayyappa an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings pending before the trial court.
In effect, the High Court has sent out a clear message that public safety cannot be subordinated to unregulated stray dog feeding. By prioritising the safety of children, the elderly, and other vulnerable residents over the asserted rights of feeders to use common spaces at will, the Court has reinforced that animal welfare cannot come at the cost of human life and security, particularly in residential societies and high risk public areas.
