AYYAPA SWAMI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Quashing of FIR: Objecting to Stray Dog Feeding in Non-Designated Areas Does Not Constitute Wrongful Restraint under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:56740-DB
Decision Date: 18-12-2025
List of Laws
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 528 of the BNSS; Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023
- Facts: The applicant, Ayyappa Swami, sought the quashing of an FIR filed against him by the informant, Rushali Purushottam Gupta, concerning offences under Sections 126(2), 351(1), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS Act). The informant alleged that the applicant obstructed her and her colleagues from feeding stray dogs in the Megapolis Mystic Society, Pune, and specifically prevented her from leaving in her car. The applicant contended that the informant and her friends were illegally feeding stray dogs, causing nuisance and dog bite incidents. He argued that he and other society members only requested them to feed the dogs in isolated areas for the safety of children.
- Procedural Posture: The applicant filed a Criminal Application in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking to quash the FIR (C.R. No. 51 of 2025) registered at Hinjewadi Police Station and the subsequent proceedings (R.C.C. No. 58669 of 2025) pending before the J.M.F.C., Pune. A chargesheet had already been filed.
- Issue: Whether the applicant's actions of objecting to and allegedly obstructing the informant from feeding stray dogs in a non-designated area within a residential society, particularly near school bus stops and entry/exit points, constitute offences under Sections 126(2), 351(1), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, warranting the continuation of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
- Holding: The High Court allowed the Criminal Application and quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings against the applicant.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that obstructing a person from feeding stray dogs in a non-designated area, especially near school bus stops and entry/exit points of a society, does not constitute "wrongful restraint" under Section 126 of the BNS. The court emphasized the exception to Section 126(1), stating that obstruction of a private way, believed in good faith to be lawfully obstructed, is not an offence. The court also considered the high number of dog bite incidents in the society and the safety concerns of the residents, particularly children. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in "City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price," highlighting the difficulties caused by unregulated feeding of stray dogs in public places. Furthermore, the court noted that Sections 351(1) and 351(2) of the BNS are non-cognizable offences. The court concluded that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law and that the alleged offences were not made out from a plain reading of the FIR.
🔒 For Members Only