Delhi High Court: In the petitions seeking to quash the FIRs filed under Sections 34, 323, 341, 354 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), based on a compromise, in a dog-walking dispute between the neighbours, A Single Judge Bench of Arun Monga J., stated that the present case redefined the phrase “for the love of dogs!!”. The Court stated that the dispute between the parties, was private in nature and arose out of unnecessary differences between neighbours in relation to the handling of their respective pets. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Thus, the Court quashed the FIR and directed the parties to pay Rs 10,000 to a dog shelter.
Background:
In the present case, two FIRs dated 19-2-2024, arose out of the same incident on the same date and represented a version and counter-version of the dispute. The matter pertained to the handling and supervision of the parties’ respective pet dogs. The disagreement escalated during a routine dog-walk, which lead to a heated altercation between parties and further degenerated into an unsavoury scuffle, whereby each side alleged assault, intimidation, and misbehaviour against the other.
Parties in both petitions submitted that there had been a serious misunderstanding between them and they had amicably settled the matter. Hence, the present petition was filed seeking to quash the two FIRs.
Case Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the dispute being essentially private in nature and arising out of unnecessary differences between neighbours with respect to handling of their pets, continuation of the criminal proceedings in the case would serve no useful purpose and would rather amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court stated that the present case redefined the phrase “for the love of dogs!!”
The Court stated that the dispute between the parties, was essentially private in nature and arose out of unnecessary differences between neighbours in relation to the handling of their respective pets. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Court further observed that not quashing the criminal proceedings would rekindle hostility, whereas quashing the same would promote cordiality and bonhomie between the neighbours.
Thus, Court invoked its inherent powers to prevent undue hardship to the parties and promote mutual goodwill and societal harmony. The Court quashed both FIRs and consequential proceedings and directed the parties to pay Rs 10,000 each, as costs, to the dog shelter maintained and run by “Unity for Stray Animal Foundation”.
[Ansh Jindal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5608, decided on 20-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Iqbal Singh, N.K. Sharma, Ravinder, Lalit and Vinod Kumar Mangal, Advocates with petitioners in person
For the Respondent: Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State with SI Kusum Choudhary and ASI Santosh, PS — KNK Marg. Ravinder, Lalit, Vinod Kumar Mangal, Iqbal Singh and N.K. Sharma Advocates
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
