Karnataka High Court: In a matter revolving around alleged kidnapping of a pet cat named Daisy which subsequently led to filing of chargesheet against the petitioner accusing him of serious offences including insulting the modesty of a woman, the Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J., while considering the issue, took to task the jurisdictional police for entertaining the complaint of a missing cat ostensibly for extraneous reasons. The Court said that the Police ought not to have entertained the complaint which did not indicate any cognizable offence at the outset. In fact, the complaint did not even indicate a non-cognizable offence. Mincing no words, the Court said that the instant case revealed the symptomatic misuse of criminal process where hurt feelings or robust grievances masquerade as legal wrongs.
“If proceedings of this nature are permitted to continue, it would be a travesty and putting a premium on the litigious persistence of the complainant and reducing the criminal justice system to conduct a trial, in a melodrama woven around a cat”.
The Court strictly noted that the prosecution in the instant case warranted judicial censure and the Police too, deserve stern admonishing, for allowing themselves to be swept into whimsical pursuit of justice for a wayward pet feline.
“Cases of this nature should serve as a gentle, but firm reminder, to all the stakeholders in the criminal justice system that the law is a solemn instrument and not a toy to be played at the altar of personal pique”.
Background:
The petitioner resided in an apartment complex adjacent to the complainant’s house. Daisy, the cat in question, went missing leaping from one window to another. The cat jumped out from the complainant’s house to the neighbouring houses including the house of the petitioner. The complainant upon searching and asking about her missing pet cat, reached the house of the petitioner, whereby the petitioner indicated that no cat entered his house.
Aggrieved with the abovementioned turn of events, the pet owner filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Hebbagodi Police Station. The complainant stated that due to the alleged kidnapping of Daisy the cat, she had undergone severe stress, trauma and harassment. She further expressed apprehension about the safety of the cat who she had been taking care of like her own child. She stated that the pet cat is being wrongfully and forcibly retained by the neighbours. The Complainant further stated in her complaint that should anything happen to her pet cat under the wrongful custody and should she, her family and other pets be further harassed in any way or face any untoward consequence because of the complaint; the complainant shall hold the Police, All Government departments and the petitioner and his family responsible.
Since the complainant claimed that she treated the pet cat as her child, so a crime was registered under Sections 428, 429, 504, 506 and 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Subsequently, the Police started its investigation and filed a chargesheet against the petitioner dropping Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC, but retaining offences under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC.
Aggrieved with the filing of the chargesheet for offences comprising provocation of breach of the peace; criminal intimidation and insulting the modesty of a woman, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Contentions:
Counsel for the petitioner’s counsel contended that Daisy the cat was jumping from house to house, through windows in the apartment complex. It was staying nowhere. It may have come to the house of the petitioner and jumped to another house. The CCTV footage that was handed over to the Police clearly demonstrated that the cat was jumping from one window to another. It was submitted that upon enquiry by the complainant, the petitioner had clearly informed her the cat was not in his premises. The Counsel contended it was inexplicable that how the case of a missing cat would attract the offence of insulting a woman’s modesty against the petitioner.
Meanwhile, the respondent sought to defend the chargesheet; however, they admitted that a this was frivolous case that was projected by the complainant and the complainant did not appear before the Court to answer the contentions.
Court’s Assessment on misuse of criminal process in the case of Daisy the cat’s disappearance:
Perusing the facts, the complaint, the chargesheet and contentions raised in the case, the Court stated that if the contents of the complaint are seen, then it is shocking as to how the jurisdictional Police could have registered the complaint, as there was no offence indicated in the complaint, except missing cat and alleged wrongful custody of the cat in the house of the petitioner. Safety of the complainant’s cat was the fulcrum of the complaint. The entire police machinery got involved in the case of a missing cat, recorded statement of neighbours, saw CCTV footage and found nothing but filed a chargesheet dropping the offences under Sections 428 and 429 of the IPC, but retaining the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC.
Perusing the chargesheet, the Court pointed out that it had retrospective embellishments, which even the complaint did not contain. The chargesheet narrated that abuses were hurled and sexual actions were made against the complainant. This was not even uttered in the complaint, but they form part of the charge sheet.
Perusing the ingredients of Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC, and relying on Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, the Court pointed out that if the allegations against the petitioner in the complaint and in the chargesheet are considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down in Mohd. Wajid (supra), then not even one of ingredient of offence under Section 504 or 506 of the IPC was found in the instant case.
The Court further pointed out that Section 509 punishes one who seeks to outrage the modesty of a woman. “Whether this provision would get attracted to the ingredients of the complaint is a mystery”. It was noted that all that the complainant narrates is about her cat named Daisy.
“The cat named Daisy appears to have driven every one crazy and even the criminal justice system”.
The Court strictly said that the Police should not have entertained the complaint which did not indicate any offence at the outset; however, here the Police went on to register a crime. “Plethora of cases are filed before the Court complaining that the Police are not entertaining the complaint and seek a direction to register the complaint by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus. But, here for a missing cat and no other offence or kidnapping of the cat, or no other cognizable offence, FIR is registered only to assuage the feelings of the complainant who is said to have been distressed because the cat has leaped from one window to another”.
The Court cautioned that if such frivolous grievances are allowed to blossom into a full-fledged criminal trial, it would be nothing but wasting of precious judicial time and more gravely, diverting police resources from genuine grievances.
The Court further opined that the instant case is a fit case for not only quashing the proceedings, but also for reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution against the complainant. “The complainant having chosen not to appear, leaves unanswered the serious nature of her false assertions”.
Therefore, with the afore-stated assessment, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
[Taha Hussain v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No.12290 of 2023, decided on 10-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Petitioner: SRI DEVARAJ G., ADVOCATE
Respondent: SRI B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
