Madras HC Quashes Animal Cruelty Prosecution Filed Without Mandatory Prior Permission Under BNSS

Madras High Court quashes criminal proceedings against a neighbour accused of pelting stone at a dog, holding police registered the FIR for a non-cognizable offence without the court's prior permission as required by BNSS.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, sitting singly at the Madras High Court, has quashed the criminal proceedings in STC No.1890 of 2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, which arose from a complaint that the petitioner, Balaji, had pelted a stone at his neighbour's pet dog. The court found that the offence under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is a non-cognizable offence and that the Peerkankaranai Police registered the FIR and filed a final report without first obtaining the permission of a jurisdictional court as mandated by Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Magistrate compounded the error by taking cognizance and issuing summons without noticing this procedural defect. The court held the entire proceedings to be an abuse of the process of law.

The Dispute Between Neighbours

Balaji resides at No.4/485, 3rd Street, Annai Indra Nagar, Old Perungalathur, Chennai – 600 063. His neighbour, Devaraj Manikkam, lives at No.4/483 of the same street. The two share a history of enmity.

According to the petitioner's account, Devaraj Manikkam would deliberately direct his pet dog to bite Balaji when Balaji walked in the street. On one such occasion, the dog bit Balaji's leg and caused him serious injuries. Balaji filed a complaint, and the Peerkankaranai Police registered Crime No.403 of 2024 against Devaraj Manikkam for an offence under Section 291 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Devaraj Manikkam then lodged a counter-complaint alleging that Balaji had pelted a stone at the dog. On that complaint, the police registered Crime No.404 of 2024 under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. After investigation, a final report was filed and the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram took cognizance in STC No.1890 of 2025 and issued summons to Balaji.

Balaji challenged those proceedings before the Madras High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking their quashing.

The Legal Issue: Non-Cognizable Offence and Mandatory Prior Permission

The centrepiece of Balaji's challenge was a procedural argument grounded in the nature of the offence itself. Section 31 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act classifies the offence under Section 11(1)(a) as a non-cognizable offence. Under Section 174(2) of the BNSS, police cannot register an FIR for a non-cognizable offence without first obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional court.

The court extracted Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in full. That provision makes it an offence to beat, kick, over-ride, over-drive, over-load, torture, or otherwise treat any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering. The punishment prescribed is a fine of not less than ten rupees, extendable to fifty rupees for a first offence. For a second or subsequent offence committed within three years, the fine may extend to one hundred rupees or imprisonment up to three months, or both.

Given that the maximum penalty for a first offence is a fine of fifty rupees, and given the Act's own classification of the offence as non-cognizable, the court found the procedural violation to be plain. The police had registered Crime No.404 of 2024, completed the investigation, and filed the final report, all without obtaining the prior permission that Section 174(2) of the BNSS required.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Ilanthiraiyan examined the background facts to situate the complaint in context. He found that the petitioner and the second respondent were neighbours with prior enmity, and that Crime No.404 of 2024 was filed as a direct counter to Crime No.403 of 2024 registered against the second respondent. The court treated the proceedings as “nothing but a counter blast” to the earlier complaint lodged by Balaji.

The court also looked at the evidentiary position. The second respondent alleged that Balaji pelted a stone at the dog, but produced no evidence to show that the dog sustained any injury. By contrast, Balaji had lodged his complaint along with medical records and photographs showing that the dog had bitten his leg.

On the procedural infirmity, the court found that the first respondent — the Inspector of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station — ought to have obtained prior permission from the jurisdictional court before registering the FIR. Having failed to do so, the registration was bad in law. The Magistrate then compounded the problem by mechanically taking cognizance and issuing summons without noticing that the foundational requirement of prior permission had not been met.

Taken together — the counter-blast character of the complaint, the absence of injury evidence, and the failure to comply with Section 174(2) of the BNSS — the court concluded that the entire proceedings amounted to a clear abuse of the process of law, warranting interference under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Outcome

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed Crl.O.P.No.9632 of 2026 and quashed the proceedings in STC No.1890 of 2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram. The connected miscellaneous petition, Crl.M.P.No.6830 of 2026, was closed as a consequence.

The order was addressed to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram; the Inspector of Police, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Tambaram; and the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.