The Madras High Court quashed an animal-cruelty case against a man accused of pelting a stone at a neighbour’s pet dog, holding that the offence is non-cognizable and carries a maximum fine of Rs 50, so the police were required to obtain the Magistrate’s prior permission before registering the FIR, and had not.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man booked under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for allegedly pelting a stone at his neighbour’s pet dog, holding that since the offence is non-cognizable, the police could not have registered a First Information Report and investigated it without first obtaining the prior permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate, as required by law [Balaji v. State and Another].
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, allowing the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), held that the entire prosecution was “a clear abuse of the process of law” and quashed it.
A neighbours’ quarrel, and a counter-complaint
The case arose from a dispute between two neighbours. On a complaint by the second respondent, the police had registered a case under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, alleging that the petitioner had pelted a stone at the complainant’s pet dog. After investigation, a final report was filed and the Magistrate took cognizance, issuing summons to the petitioner.
The petitioner’s version placed the matter in a very different light. According to him, there was prior enmity between the two, and the complainant would, with malicious intent, set the dog upon him; on one occasion the dog bit his leg and caused serious injury, following which he lodged his own complaint against the neighbour, registered under Section 291 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with negligence in respect of an animal. The animal-cruelty case, the petitioner contended, was simply a “counter-blast” to that complaint. The Court noted that while the complainant had produced no evidence that the dog suffered any injury from the alleged stone-pelting, the petitioner had produced medical records and photographs to substantiate the dog-bite he had suffered.
The decisive point: a non-cognizable offence needs prior permission
The Court’s decision turned on a clear point of criminal procedure. The offence under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is, by virtue of Section 31 of that Act, a non-cognizable offence, and one that carries only a modest fine: for a first offence, the punishment prescribed is a fine of not less than Rs 10 which may extend to Rs 50.
For a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot register an FIR and investigate of their own accord. As the Court explained, before registering such a case the police were required to obtain the prior permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate, as contemplated under Section 174(2) of the BNSS (the successor to the provision on the investigation of non-cognizable cases under the old Code of Criminal Procedure). Here, the first respondent police station had registered the FIR, conducted the investigation and filed a final report without obtaining that mandatory prior permission, and the trial court had then, “without noticing the same, mechanically took cognizance and issued summons.”
That procedural default, the Court held, went to the root of the prosecution. Having been initiated without the sanction the law requires for a non-cognizable offence, and bearing the hallmarks of a retaliatory complaint unsupported by any evidence of injury to the animal, the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and could not be allowed to continue.
Why the order matters
Beyond its everyday, almost domestic facts, the order is a useful reminder of a procedural safeguard that is often overlooked: the distinct treatment of non-cognizable offences. The classification of offences into cognizable and non-cognizable is not a technicality but a deliberate filter, cognizable offences (typically the more serious ones) permit the police to register an FIR and investigate on their own, whereas for non-cognizable offences, usually minor matters, the law requires the police to first secure a Magistrate’s order before setting the criminal process in motion. That requirement exists precisely to prevent the police machinery from being deployed, at the instance of a private complainant, over trivial or retaliatory grievances.
The case illustrates how that safeguard can be bypassed in practice, an FIR registered, an investigation completed and cognizance taken, all for an offence whose maximum penalty is a Rs 50 fine and which the police had no authority to investigate without leave of the court. By quashing the proceedings, the High Court reaffirmed that the requirement of prior permission for non-cognizable offences is mandatory and not a formality, and that its breach vitiates the prosecution. It is also a caution against the misuse of the criminal law to settle neighbourly scores: where a complaint appears to be a counter-blast lodged to pressure an adversary, and is unsupported by evidence, the court’s inherent quashing power under Section 528 BNSS is available to bring the abuse to an end.
Case Title: Balaji v. State and Another [Crl.O.P. No. 9632 of 2026]
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, Madras High Court
Date of Order: September 1, 2026