In a significant ruling addressing conflicts between animal feeders and residents, the Bombay High Court has clarified that preventing a person from feeding stray dogs in areas not designated for the purpose does not amount to the offence of 'wrongful restraint' under the new criminal code. The court's decision came last week while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a 42-year-old Pune resident.
The Case: A Clash Over Canine Care
The legal dispute originated from an incident in September 2024 at a housing society in Pune's Hinjewadi area. According to the FIR lodged at the Hinjewadi police station in January 2025, a woman complainant and her friends went to the society to feed street dogs. The applicant, along with other society members, objected to their actions. The FIR alleged that when the woman began recording the argument on her mobile phone, the accused man tried to snatch the device. Furthermore, as the complainant returned to her car, the applicant allegedly stood in front of the vehicle, preventing her from leaving.
The accused was booked under Sections 126(2) for wrongful restraint and 351(1) for criminal intimidation of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), among other provisions. The FIR was filed after a delay of nearly four months.
Court's Rationale and Key Observations
A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh D Patil heard the criminal application seeking to quash the FIR. The bench delivered its verdict on December 18, 2025. The applicant, represented by advocate Mohan Anant Vishnu, argued that the feeding activities had created a significant nuisance. He submitted that approximately 40 dog bite incidents had occurred in the society over the preceding 11 months and emphasized that the spot where the feeding occurred was not a designated feeding area but was near school bus points and society entry-exit gates.
The High Court found merit in these submissions. It noted that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 specifically provide for designated feeding areas for stray dogs. The bench observed, "Having regard to the peculiar facts, we find that obstructing a person from feeding stray dogs in a non-designated area and the area where schoolchildren board and alight school buses, as well as near the entry and exit points of the society, cannot be said to be 'wrongful restraint' within the meaning of Section 126 of the BNS."
Legal Precedent and Final Order
The court reinforced its stance by referring to earlier Supreme Court judgments and a specific exception within the BNS. It pointed out that Section 126(1) of the BNS contains an 'eloquent' exception. This exception states that obstructing a private way over land or water, which a person in good faith believes they have a lawful right to block, is not an offence under this section.
"In any event, stopping a person from wrongfully feeding the stray dogs in a non-designated area cannot be said to be restraint within the meaning of Section 126(1) of the BNS Act," the court categorically stated. Considering the delayed FIR and the legal principles involved, the High Court allowed the plea. It quashed the FIR registered against the applicant and set aside all subsequent legal proceedings pending before the magistrate's court.
This ruling provides crucial legal clarity for residential societies grappling with the issue of stray dog feeding, balancing animal welfare concerns with the rights and safety of residents, especially in non-designated zones.
