Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings pending in C.C. No. 13477 of 2022 before the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal, holding that no cognizable offence was made out in the complaint which was based on allegations of kidnapping and wrongful confinement of a cat named ‘Daisy’. The Court censured both the complainant and the police, observing that entertaining such a complaint undermined the sanctity of the criminal justice system. It further granted liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution against the complainant.
Facts
The petitioner and the complainant were neighbours residing in the same apartment complex. The complainant alleged that her pet cat, Daisy, was kidnapped and wrongfully detained by the petitioner. She approached the Hebbagodi Police Station and registered an FIR (Crime No. 36/2022), invoking Sections 428, 429, 504, 506, and 509 IPC. The police later dropped Sections 428 and 429 and filed a charge sheet under Sections 504, 506, and 509 IPC.
According to the petitioner, the cat frequently jumped between flats, including his, but never stayed in his house. CCTV footage submitted during the investigation showed the cat leaping from one window to another, with no evidence of confinement. The complainant was enraged by the petitioner’s denial of any involvement, and this led to registration of the complaint.
Issues
- Whether the ingredients of Sections 504, 506, and 509 IPC were made out from the complaint and charge sheet?
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the cat was a stray within the apartment complex, entering and exiting flats freely. He denied any wrongful confinement and contended that the complaint was lodged merely because he declined to accept responsibility for the missing cat. The CCTV footage showed the cat was not forcibly retained, and there were no abusive or intimidating gestures or words as alleged. The petitioner asserted that the FIR was frivolous and driven by personal pique rather than any legal wrongdoing.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Additional State Public Prosecutor, while formally defending the case, admitted that it was frivolous and conceded that the complainant had neither appeared nor engaged any counsel. He left the matter to the discretion of the Court and refrained from seriously contesting the petitioner’s arguments.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed Sections 504, 506, and 509 IPC and observed that none of the ingredients required to constitute the offences were met.
- Section 504 IPC: Requires intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace. The complaint did not contain any such provocation or words to that effect.
- Section 506 IPC: Requires criminal intimidation with intent to cause alarm. There was no threat or intimidation that met the threshold for the offence.
- Section 509 IPC: Requires gestures, words, or actions intending to insult the modesty of a woman. The complaint, focusing solely on the missing cat, did not even remotely invoke such conduct.
Precedent Analysis
- Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951: The Supreme Court held that mere abuse or rudeness does not constitute offences under Sections 504 or 506 IPC unless it is shown that the accused intended to provoke a breach of peace or cause alarm. It emphasized that the actual abusive words must be stated in the complaint to satisfy the offence. The Karnataka High Court applied this ratio to conclude that no such material was present in the instant case.
- King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78: Cited to reiterate that to constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC, the insult must be of a kind likely to provoke violence. This standard was not met here.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found the complaint to be absurd and held that the entire case was built on emotional grievance rather than legal merit. It strongly censured the police for registering a case devoid of any cognizable offence:
“The cat named Daisy appears to have driven every one crazy and even the criminal justice system.”
The Court emphasized that criminal law is not meant to be misused for whimsical grievances:
“If such frivolous grievances are allowed to blossom into a full-fledged criminal trial… it would be nothing but wasting of precious judicial time.”
It also pointed out that the charge sheet contained retrospective embellishments not present in the original complaint, which was another ground for quashing.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No.13477 of 2022. It also granted liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution and criticized the police for yielding to extraneous motivations in registering the FIR.
“Law is a solemn instrument and not a toy to be played at the altar of personal pique.”
Implications
This judgment serves as a cautionary precedent against misuse of the criminal justice system for personal vendettas, particularly when complaints lack any legal substance. It sends a strong message to police authorities to act judiciously before registering FIRs and reiterates that legal forums must not become theatres for personal melodrama. It also opens the door for malicious prosecution proceedings against frivolous complainants.
Also Read: Karnataka High Court Quashes SC/ST Case Arising from Business Rivalry