'Police Should Be Cautious In Registering FIRs' : Bombay HC Orders State To Compensate Man Named In Baseless FIR

The division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan observed:

“Considering that the police had lodged the said prosecution despite no offence having been disclosed, we deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to pay costs of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner. However, the said costs shall be recovered from the salary of the concerned officers responsible for lodging the FIR and later approving filing of chargesheet.”

The court further observed that, the police being the custodian of law, need to be more circumspect and cautious whilst registering FIRs and of course later, whilst filing chargesheet.

Facts

The Marine Drive Police had booked an 18-year-old food delivery man under sections 229 and 337 of the IPC related endangering human life and section 429 IPC for mischief by killing an animal. He was also charged under section 11(a)(b) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The complainant, the dog feeder, alleged that the delivery boy was proceeding at a high speed on his bike when he rammed into a stray dog on the road, killing the animal.

Advocate Trupti Shetty for the petitioner argued during the nationwide lockdown on 11th April, 2020, the appellant Manas Godbole was on his way to make a food delivery when a stray dog suddenly came in front of his bike. “In an attempt to save the dog, the petitioner suddenly applied brakes. He and the dog unfortunately veered to the same side, and in that process both sustained injuries. The dog, however, lost his life.

Godbole was riding within the specified speed limit as well, she said. The accused (now 20) is a final year Electronics and Telecommunications Student, she said.

Observations

At the outset, the bench rapped the police for applying certain IPC sections meant only for human beings and observed that there was total “non-application of mind” and defiance of logic. The court also noted that none of the sections would apply, especially since there was no mes rea from the manner in which the accident happened.

No doubt, a dog/cat is treated as a child or as a family member by their owners, but basic biology tells us that they are not human beings, the court said.

Also Read: May Be Treated As Child By Owners But Dogs Aren’t Human Beings: Bombay High Court Quashes Rash Driving Case Against Swiggy Delivery Partner