Delhi High Court | ‘For The Love Of Dogs’: Cross FIRs Quashed Between Pet Owners Under Section 528 BNSS | Parties Directed To Contribute To Dog Shelter
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga held that the continuation of two criminal proceedings arising out of cross First Information Reports (FIRs) would serve no useful purpose in light of an amicable settlement between the parties. The Court directed that both FIR No. 70/2024 and FIR No. 71/2024, registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg for alleged offences under Sections 34, 323, 341, 354, and 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code, together with all consequential proceedings, be quashed. It further directed the parties to contribute costs to an animal welfare organization.
The matter originated from an incident on 19 February 2024 involving neighbours engaged in the supervision of their respective pet dogs. On that date, a disagreement escalated during a routine dog walk. The altercation, initially verbal, developed into a physical scuffle. Each side alleged intimidation, assault, and misbehaviour by the other.
As a result of this confrontation, two separate FIRs were lodged on the same day at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg. The first, FIR No. 70/2024, cited offences under Sections 34, 323, 341, and 354 of the IPC. The second, FIR No. 71/2024, cited Sections 34, 323, 341, and 354(B) of the IPC. Each FIR presented a counter-narrative to the same dispute.
Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement. On 1 February 2025, a Memorandum of Understanding and Settlement Deed was executed, signifying that both sides had resolved their differences. The petitioners in each case then approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIRs and the termination of all related proceedings.
During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioners referred to the precedent established in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, submitting that criminal proceedings of a private nature may be quashed where the matter has been amicably settled. Counsel on both sides argued that, given the compromise, it would be appropriate to put an end to the criminal process.
The Court noted that both FIRs arose from the same incident and constituted versions and counter-versions of the same quarrel. The essential dispute revolved around the management of pet dogs, a matter of a private nature between neighbours rather than a public wrong requiring continued prosecution.
Justice Arun Monga recorded the following observations: “Both FIRs, ibid, arising out of the same incident on the same date, represent a version and counter-version of the dispute. The matter pertains to the handling and supervision of the parties’ respective pet dogs. The disagreement escalated during a routine dog-walk, leading to a heated altercation which further degenerated into an unsavoury scuffle, with each side alleging assault, intimidation, and misbehaviour against the other.”
“The parties are present before the Court in person. Upon interaction, it appears that the underlying dispute, being private in nature, has indeed been amicably resolved. They further affirm in unison, of their own free will and without any coercion or duress that they do not wish to pursue the matter and consent to the quashing of the FIRs in question.”
“The dispute between the parties, being essentially private in nature and arising 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 rather amount to an abuse of the process of law. Not quashing the criminal proceedings would rather rekindle hostility, whereas quashing the same would promote cordiality and bonhomie between the neighbours.”
“It is thus deemed just and appropriate to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent undue hardship to the parties and promote mutual goodwill and societal harmony.”
The Court concluded with specific directions. Justice Arun Monga stated: “Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. FIR No.70/2024 dated 19.02.2024, for the alleged offences u/S 34, 323, 341, 354 of IPC, and FIR No.71/2024 dated 19.12.2024, u/S 34, 323, 341, 354 (B) of IPC, both lodged at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg, and all other consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.”
The Court further directed that the compromise would not be without conditions. It ordered: “However, parties to compromise i.e. petitioners in both the petitions, for the love of their pets, shall pay, within one week, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in each petition, as costs payable to the dog shelter maintained and run by ‘Unity for Stray Animal Foundation’, Khera Khurd, Near Nahar Wala Pul, Mithishi Milk Point-110082.”
Finally, compliance was required: “Let a compliance report be filed.”
With this, pending applications stood disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Iqbal Singh, Advocate; Mr. N.K. Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Ravinder, Advocate; Mr. Lalit, Advocate; Mr. Vinod Kumar Mangal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the State with SI Kusum Choudhary, Mr. Ravinder, Advocate; Mr. Lalit, Advocate; Mr. Vinod Kumar Mangal, Advocate; Mr. Iqbal Singh, Advocate; Mr. N.K. Sharma, Advocate
Case Title: Ansh Jindal & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. and Kirti Chauhan & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 5583/2025 & CRL.M.C. 5697/2025
Bench: Justice Arun Monga
