The Bench noted that there was no intent whatsoever of the petitioner to cause the death of the dog which crossed the road when he was on his bike, en route to deliver a food parcel.
“Nothing is shown by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was driving beyond the speed limit stipulated on the said road. The incident shows that the dog crossed the road, as a result of which, the petitioner’s bike due to sudden braking, skidded and as such the petitioner sustained injuries on his person in the said incident and the dog got injured and later succumbed to the same,” the bench noted.
Therefore, no offences as alleged in the FIR are made out against the petitioner and the same cannot sustain in law, the judges opined.
It pulled up the Police for registering the FIR ‘without applying its mind.’
“How Sections 279, 337, 429 could have been applied to the case in hand, even from a bare perusal of these Sections, defies logic. The police being the custodian of law, need to be more circumspect and cautious whilst registering FIRs and of course later, whilst filing chargesheet,” the bench held.
With these observations, the judges quashed the FIR.
Source: Barandbench
