Karnataka High Court quashes bizarre case against a man accused of ‘kidnapping’ his neighbour’s cat, Daisy. The Court criticizes police for misusing legal process in a whimsical pursuit of feline justice.
Bengaluru: Today, on June 10, in a rather unusual legal case, the Karnataka High Court quashed a criminal complaint filed against a Bengaluru resident, Taha Husain, who was accused of “kidnapping” his neighbour’s pet cat named Daisy.
The Court criticized the police for getting involved in what it called a
“whimsical pursuit of justice for the cat named Daisy.”
Justice M Nagaprasanna, while hearing the matter, expressed deep concern and surprise that such a case was even registered by the police.
ALSO READ: Kidnapping Own Child? Not Possible, Says Punjab High Court in Landmark Ruling
He remarked,
“the cat named Daisy appears to have driven every one crazy and even the criminal justice system.”
He further noted that the complaint itself did not show any real offence being committed, apart from a missing cat and an allegation that the cat was kept inside the house of the accused.
The Court said,
“If the contents of the complaint are seen, it shocks the conscience of the Court as to how the jurisdictional Police could have registered the complaint, as there is no offence indicated in the complaint, except missing cat and alleged wrongful custody of the cat in the house of the accused.”
The incident dates back to 2022, when a woman named Nikitha Anjana Iyer filed a police complaint against her neighbour, Taha Husain.
Initially, the police booked him under Sections 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with killing or maiming animals.
Later, these charges were dropped, and instead, the police applied Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman).
In July 2024, the High Court had already stayed the proceedings after Taha Husain filed a petition to quash the case.
In his plea, he argued that cats naturally come and go through windows and that continuing the case would be a waste of the justice system’s time.
He said that,
“cats will get in and go out from the windows and permitting further proceedings on such a frivolous complaint for the alleged offences…would clog the criminal justice system.”
However, the complainant insisted that her cat was found inside Husain’s house and accused him of unlawfully keeping the pet.
She also claimed that this act caused her
“unnecessary stress and emotional trauma.”
In its final order, the Karnataka High Court noted that the police had unnecessarily involved themselves in a matter that did not warrant such attention.
They had recorded statements from neighbours, examined CCTV footage, and still found nothing substantial. Despite that, they went ahead and filed a charge sheet.
The Court criticized this strongly and said,
“The summary of the charge sheet has retrospective embellishments, which even the complaint did not contain. The charge sheet narrates that abuses were hurled and sexual actions were made against the complainant. This was not even uttered in the complaint, but they form part of the charge sheet.”
It added that none of the allegations made against Husain fulfilled the basic requirements of the offences under Sections 504 and 506.
The Court especially questioned the application of Section 509 IPC, which deals with insulting the modesty of a woman.
The Court said,
“Section 509 punishes one who seeks to outrage the modesty of a woman. Whether this provision would get attracted to the ingredients of the complaint is a mystery.”
The judge further observed that the police should have never registered the complaint in the first place, as it did not indicate any criminal offence.
“The Police ought not to have entertained the complaint, which did not indicate any cognizable offence at the outset. As a matter of fact, the complaint does not even indicate a non-cognizable offence. But, the Police entertain the complaint ostensibly, for extraneous reasons.”
The Court again repeated its observation in a witty yet serious tone,
“The cat named Daisy appears to have driven every one crazy and even the criminal justice system.”
Justice Nagaprasanna stated that this case was an example of how criminal law can be misused and warned that if such cases are allowed to continue, it would lead to a misuse of the legal system.
“It is not merely the present prosecution warrants judicial censure, it is the symptomatic misuse of criminal process, where hurt feelings or robust grievances masquerade as legal wrongs. If such frivolous grievances are allowed to blossom into a full fledged criminal trial, it would be nothing but wasting of precious judicial time and more gravely, diverting police resources from genuine grievances.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal case against Taha Husain. It also stated that since the complainant neither appeared in person nor through her lawyer, Husain is now allowed to take legal action for malicious prosecution.
“The complainant having chosen not to appear, leaves unanswered the serious nature of her false assertions. In the light of the complainant not being represented herself or through an Advocate, this Court holds its hands in permitting the petitioner to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution.”
In a firm warning to the police, the Court gave a sharp rebuke.
“The Police too, deserve stern admonishing, for allowing themselves to be swept into whimsical pursuit of justice for a cat named Daisy. Cases of this nature should serve as a gentle, but firm reminder, to all the stakeholders in the criminal justice system that the law is a solemn instrument and not a toy to be played at the altar of personal pique.”
Advocate Devaraj G appeared for the petitioner Taha Husain, while Advocate BN Jagadeesha represented the State.
Case Title:
Sri Taha Husain v The State of Karnataka and Another
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Money Laundering
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
