The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday termed a criminal case against a senior citizen as prima facie frivolous, which had led to the denial of her passport renewal. The case stemmed from a lawyer's complaint alleging that her 10 dogs had attacked him.
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that such cases have clogged criminal courts and prevented regular cases from proceeding. The court granted the complainant a final opportunity to appear before passing orders on the elderly woman's plea seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The petitioner, who owns 10 Golden Retrievers, approached the High Court after being unable to renew her passport due to the pendency of a criminal case before the Magistrate Court for an offence under Section 289 of the IPC (negligent conduct with respect to animals). She stated she was unaware of the complaint until it was flagged by passport authorities.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Vaishali Hegde argued that the complaint was manifestly frivolous and amounted to an abuse of the process of law. She pointed out that the complainant alleged the incident occurred on November 28, 2021, a Sunday, while claiming he was on his way to court. Hegde stated, 'He says he was on the way to court. The dogs didn't attack him. This could not have happened on a Sunday.' She highlighted several inconsistencies in the complaint.
According to the petitioner, the spot inspection of the alleged incident was conducted nearly five months later, on April 24, 2022. It was further argued that the date of the alleged incident had been subsequently changed and the number of dogs allegedly involved was reduced from 10 to five. The petitioner iterated that she is a law-abiding senior citizen who regularly walks her 10 well-trained Golden Retrievers in Cubbon Park, and they are known as well-behaved to regular park-goers.
Counsel further submitted that the complaint had been pending for several years and that the complainant had allegedly not appeared before the trial court either. It was claimed that the petitioner was being harassed over her property located next to a prestigious school. The dogs, according to counsel, had been harassed day in and day out, and such cases were being filed to prejudice her.
The High Court, however, did not immediately quash the proceedings. Instead, it granted the complainant a final opportunity to appear in the petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC. The court orally remarked, 'Will not ask who let the dogs out.. but one opportunity maybe granted, if he[complainant] doesn't appear, we will pass orders on next date.'
The matter has been listed for further hearing on Tuesday, with the stay on the trial court proceedings continuing until the next date. The case is titled Sangeetha Mehrotra vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., CRL.P No. 9793/2025.