← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/4098/2021allowed

Kapil Narsinha Moye v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

2023-08-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice R. N. Laddha2 pages

bipin prithiani 17-wp-4098.21.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4098 OF 2021 Kapil Narsinha Moye ...

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents ****** Mr. Ashwin Thool i/by Pralhad Paranjape for the Petitioner. Mr. Bhavesh Thakur for the Respondent No.3.

Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State. ****** CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE AND R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATE : 4th AUGUST, 2023 P.C. :- .

The petitioner's pet dog attacked respondent No.3-complainant resulting into the registration of offence being Crime No. 172 of 2020 punishable under Sections 289 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.

The respondent No.3 thereafter took treatment with the Nair Hospital, managed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. 3.

The perusal of the FIR speaks of the dog was leashed by the petitioner and as such, the reasonable care and precaution appears to have been taken by the petitioner so as to avoid the untoward incident like the one in present case as that of dog bite. 4.

Considering the eventuality in which the present incident has occurred and the fact that no mens rea as such could be inferred against

bipin prithiani 17-wp-4098.21.doc the petitioner, the dog having already expired yesterday night, the complainant who is present in the Court has consented for quashing of the offence.

5.

The petitioner who is also present in the Court has expressed his regret for the incident in question and has assured that he shall be taking more precaution, in case, in future he intends to have similar pets.

6.

Since both the petitioner and respondent No.3-complainant have ended up the aforesaid proceedings on a good note viz. consent extended by the respondent No.3 for quashing (who is physically present in the Court and is identified by his lawyer), we deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 7.

As such, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). [R. N. LADDHA, J.] [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2023.08.07 10:28:58 +0530