Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the driver of a Fortuner SUV, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.21/2018 registered by Vijayanagar Police, Bengaluru. The case arose from an incident on 24.02.2018, when the petitioner's vehicle struck and killed a pet dog while the dog was being walked on a public road. The complainant registered a complaint against the petitioner, alleging offences punishable under Sections 134(A & B) and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sections 279, 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru in C.C. No.5016/2018. The petitioner contended that no criminal offence was made out. He argued that there was no mens rea or animus to commit mischief, that the dog was on the road resulting in an accident, and that there was no prior enmity or intention to cause harm. He submitted that Section 429 IPC requires a deliberate attempt to commit mischief, which was absent. He further argued that Section 279 IPC applies only to accidents involving human beings, not animals, and that Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act similarly does not apply to animals. In support, he relied on decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P (1996 Crl.L.J 369), Majid Ali v. State (Laws (All) 1956 1234), the Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan v. Nauratan Mal (2002 Crl.L.J. 348), and the Saurashtra High Court in Bhagwan Rana v. State (1953 Crl.L.J. 1350), all holding that for an offence under Section 429 IPC, intention or knowledge is essential. The High Court heard arguments and reserved orders on 22.08.2022; the judgment was pronounced on 21.10.2022. The final order is not provided in the extracted text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether charges under Sections 279, 428, 429 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 134(A&B) and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are maintainable against a driver whose vehicle accidentally hit and killed a pet dog on a public road.
Law Points
- Mens rea or intention to commit mischief is essential for offence under Section 429 IPC
- accident does not constitute mischief
- Section 279 IPC applies only to accidents involving human beings
- Section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act not applicable to animals
- commission of mischief requires animus to cause wrongful loss
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (10) 1
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2019
M. Shashidhara, Mahesh Shetty, P. Anu Chengappa
State of Karnataka; Dhiraj Rakheja
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of proceedings in Crime No.21/2018 (C.C. No.5016/2018) registered for offences under IPC and Motor Vehicles Act.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was charged after his vehicle accidentally hit and killed a pet dog on a public road, and he contended that no criminal offence was made out.
Previous Decisions
Investigation led to filing of charge sheet; case pending before Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
Issues
Whether charges under Sections 279, 428, 429 IPC are maintainable in a case of accidental killing of a pet dog on a public road.
Whether Section 279 IPC applies to accidents not involving human beings.
Whether mens rea is an essential ingredient for offence under Section 429 IPC.
Whether Section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act applies to accidents involving animals.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that there was no mens rea or intention to cause harm to the pet dog; the accident occurred because the dog was on the road.
Offence under Section 429 IPC requires a deliberate attempt to commit mischief, which was absent.
The petitioner and the pet owner were not known to each other, and there was no enmity or reason to cause harm.
Section 279 IPC applies only to accidents involving human beings, not animals.
Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable to an accident involving an animal.
Reliance was placed on decisions holding that mens rea is essential for Section 429 IPC and that an accident does not constitute mischief.
Judgment Excerpts
The offence under Section 429 of IPC could be made out only in those cases where there is a deliberate attempt by an accused committing mischief which requires an animus to do something.
The accident has taken place in a public road. The complainant has not averred or alleged any particular grudge on part of the petitioner with the owner of the dog.
Section 429 will only apply in those cases where there is a deliberate attempt on behalf of the accused to commit a mischief. Commission of a mischief involves an animus to do something.
Procedural History
Complaint filed on 24.02.2018 leading to registration of Crime No.21/2018 by Vijayanagar Police, Bengaluru. Charge sheet filed for offences under IPC and MV Act. Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed praying for quashing. Heard arguments and reserved for orders on 22.08.2022; order pronounced on 21.10.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 134(A), 134(B), 187
- Indian Penal Code: 279, 428, 429
