Ayyappa Swami v. State of Maharashtra & Rushali Purushottam Gupta

1) Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State and learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2.

2) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Ms. Gauri S. Rao, learned A.P.P. waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.1- State and Mr. Sumit Gadade, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

3) By the present Criminal Application, the Applicant is praying for quashing and setting aside of the F.I.R. registered vide C.R. No.51 of 2025, with the Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune on 24th January, 2025, against the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(1), 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “BNS Act”). Rajesh Chittewan, PS 2/16 4) As chargesheet was filed during the pendency of this Application, the Applicant sought quashing of the chargesheet and consequently, the proceeding, bearing R.C.C. No.58669 of 2025, pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Pune.

5) The case of the Respondent No.2 (Original Complainant), as evident from the F.I.R. is, that she is a resident of Flat No.C-503, Rama Melange Society, Hinjewadi Phase-3 and working at TCS; that she frequently visited Megapolis Sangaria Society, Phase 3, Hinjewadi; and that on 12th September 2024, that she and her colleagues tried to capture a stray dog at Megapolis Mystic Society, but were unsuccessful due to lack of professional catchers and equipment. According to the Respondent No.2, one of her colleagues, Neha informed her, that the Applicant was opposing them from feeding stray dogs in the area, pursuant to which, she turned back and went to Megapolis Mystic Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the society’), and that at that time, the Applicant and some other members of the society alongwith the security guard were present on the common road between the society and the Sagarika Society. The Respondent No.2 has alleged that the Applicant objected to feeding stray dogs in the area and questioned one, Neha, Rajesh Chittewan, PS 3/16 whether they had permission to do so. It appears that the Respondent No.2 started recording the argument on her phone, pursuant to which, the Applicant allegedly tried to snatch her phone. Thereafter, it appears that the Respondent No.2 returned saying that the Applicant cannot stop anybody from feeding the animals in the society and that the Applicant cannot ask her (Respondent No.2) whether she has permission. The Respondent No.2 has further alleged that when she started going back towards her car, the Applicant stood in front of her car and as such prevented her form leaving the spot. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent No.2 lodged the present F.I.R., on 24th January 2025.

6) Mr. Mohan Vishnu, learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the I.R. is an abuse of process of law, as even on a plain reading of F̣ the F.I.R. as well as chargesheet, no offences can be said to have been committed by the Applicant. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the Respondent No.2 and her friends were feeding stray dogs illegally in the society premises. He contended that, this feeding of dogs had caused significant nuisance and hardship to the residents of the society. He further submitted that over the past 11 months, around 40 incidents of dog bites had occurred in the society. He submitted that on Rajesh Chittewan, PS 4/16 1st September 2024, a child was bitten by a dog, resulting in injuries and that pursuant to the said incident, the father of child had filed a complaint with the Hinjewadi Police Station on 1st September, 2024. He further stated that the residents of the society had signed a joint petition, which was submitted to the management of the society, aiming to address safety concerns related to the presence of stray dogs in the area. It is stated that the first informant (Respondent No.2) and her friends were feeding stray dogs in the society premises during school hours, specifically near the school bus pick up area and the entry/exit footpath of the society, and hence, the Applicant alongwith the Chairman and Secretary of the society requested the informant to reveal her identity and requested her to feed the dogs in isolated areas of the society to ensure the safety of the children using the footpath to go to school. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that in response to the same, the Respondent No.2- Informant and her friends began abusing the Applicant and his wife, body-shaming her, threatening the safety of their child and making threats of removal of Applicant from his job by issuing a notice to his employer.

7) Pursuant to the threats, the Applicant filed a complaint with the Rajesh Chittewan, PS 5/16 Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune, as against the Respondent No.2 on 13th January 2025. In the complaint, the Applicant has alleged that an oral altercation took place between him and the Respondent No.2, in which the Respondent No.2 threatened to file a false police complaint and also to send a notice to the Applicant’s employer. It appears that thereafter, the Applicant received a notice on 12th September 2024, from SAS INDIA NGO, through its President. The said notice alleged that the Applicant and others had wrongfully restrained the Respondent No.2 and her friends from feeding the stray dogs. On 17th September 2024, the Applicant replied to the said notice dated 12th September 2024 and denied all the allegations made therein.

8) On 27th September 2024, the Applicant through his Advocate sent a legal notice to the Respondent No.2. The said notice as received by the Respondent No.2, however, was not responded to, by her on 13th January, 2025, the Applicant lodged a Non-cognizable Report bearing No.57 of 2025 at Hinjewadi Police Station, Pune. The said non-cognizable complaint is at Exhibit ‘J’ to the present Application.

9) Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that on a plain Rajesh Chittewan, PS 6/16 reading of the F.I.R., offence under Section 126 of the BNS cannot be said to have been made out against the Applicant. He submitted that there should be voluntary obstruction to any person, so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. He relied on Exception to Section 126 of the BNS Act and relying upon the said exception, contended that no offence under Section 126(2) of the BNS, could be said to have been committed. He further submitted that, as far as the offence under Section 351 of the BNS is concerned, the said offence relates to criminal intimidation, which is also not made out; and that Section 352 of the BNS which refers to the offence of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, is also not disclosed. He submitted that the Applicant and other society members did so, only to restrain the Respondent No.2 from feeding the stray dogs near the entry/exit points of the society and also near the school bus stop of the society, and that the Respondent No.2 has twisted the facts. He further contended that the offences under Sections 351(1) and 351(2) of the BNS are non-cognizable and that, since no offence under Section 126 of BNS is disclosed, the Police could not have taken cognizance of the same and should not have registered the F.I.R. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 had filed an F.I.R., Rajesh Chittewan, PS 7/16 only as a counterblast to Applicant’s complaint. The learned Counsel for the Applicant prayed for allowing the Criminal Application.

10) Mr. Sumit Gadade, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, in turn argued that the present Criminal Application is not maintainable. He submitted that the Applicant had suppressed several facts and that there was no substance in the Application filed by the Applicant. He submitted that the Respondent No.2 is a member of the Megapolis Sangria Society. He stated that the Applicant had on multiple occasions misbehaved with the Respondent No.2 and her fellow dog-feeders. He stated that the Applicant had previously attempted to hit one of the feeders in sheer anger (Admittedly, there is no complaint on record vis-a-vis, the said incident). He stated that the Respondent No.2 is a social worker and works for the benefit of the people as well as for animals. The Respondent No.2 has denied that the F.I.R. is a counterblast to the noncognizable report filed by the Applicant. He stated that the offences under the provisions of Section 126, 351(1) and 352(2) of the BNS are made out and that chargesheet is already filed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 accordingly prays for dismissal of the Application. Rajesh Chittewan, PS 8/16 11) Ms. Gauri S. Rao, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1- State supported the F.I.R. and prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Application.

12) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have perused the documents placed on record, more particularly the chargesheet filed by the Respondent No.1- State.

13) On a perusal of the chargesheet, the F.I.R., statements of the witnesses recorded, it appears that the allegations of the first informant are; (i) that the Applicant and others unlawfully restrained her and her friends, from feeding the stray dogs in the society premises; and (ii) that the Applicant threatened the Respondent No.2 with dire consequences, pursuant to which, she lodged the F.I.R. Chargesheet is filed in the said case. The offences alleged against the Applicant are Sections 126, 351(1) and 351(2) of the BNS. Admittedly, all Sections, except Section 126 of the BNS, are non-cognizable. Section 126 of the BNS reads as under: Section 126 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023:

126. Wrongful restraint- (1) Whoever voluntarily Rajesh Chittewan, PS 9/16 obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Exception - The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section. (2) Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

14) The gravamen of the allegation is that the Applicant obstructed the Respondent No.2 from feeding the stray dogs. It is also alleged that the Applicant stood in front of the car of the Respondent No.2 and obstructed the road. The essence of Section 126 of the BNS is the voluntary obstruction of any person, so as to prevent a person from moving in any direction they have a legal right to proceed. This signifies that the person is immobilized from proceeding in any direction. Feeding of the stray dogs in an particular areas, more particularly, footpath, entry and exit points of the society and school bus stop, where the kids of the society board and alight of the school buses, is very crucial for the safety of the children and that obstructing from feeding the stray dogs in these areas cannot be said to be a voluntary obstruction within the meaning of Rajesh Chittewan, PS 10/16 Section 126 of the BNS.

15) The allegation that the Applicant blocked the Respondent No.2’s car is also very vague. The Respondent No.2 has not stated as to whether she was driving the car and then there was obstruction or the standing car was stopped by the Applicant. If the Respondent No.2 was not driving the car, there was no question of the Applicant obstructing the same. The statement of the witness viz. Neha Vakil Shaikh, shows that the Applicant stated that the place where the Respondent No.2 and her friends were feeding the stray dogs, is not a “feeding spot”. The statement of witness Shreeniwas Shreerammurthi Bhamidipati is mostly similar, to the statement of Neha. These are the only witnesses whose statements were recorded during the investigation.

16) Having regard to the peculiar facts, we find, that obstructing a person from feeding stray dogs in a non-designated area and the area, where the school children board and alight school buses, as well as near the entry and exit points of the society, cannot be said to be ‘wrongful restraint’ within the meaning of Section 126 of the BNS. Rajesh Chittewan, PS 11/16 17) The Apex Court in the judgment in Re: “City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price” reported in AIROnline 2025 SC 783 had considered that approximately 37,15,713 dogs bites occurred in India in 2024, and in several cases, human lives were lost due to trauma and rabies infection. The reports mention that the presence of aggressive stray dogs on streets are causing grave risk to the lives of children and elderly people, as well as other vulnerable sections of society and that they are unable to access streets and parks because of the fear of being attacked and bitten by the rabies infected stray dogs. The Apex Court in the said judgment had issued several directions and after issuing directions had observed as under: “The aforesaid directions are being issued in view of the reports regarding untoward incidents caused by unregulated feeding of stray dogs and to ensure that the practice of feeding dogs on roads and in public places is eliminated, as the said practice creates great difficulties for the common man walking on the streets.”