Bombay HC in Case of Swiggy Agent Accidentally Killing Canine


Edited By: Pathikrit Sen Gupta

Last Updated: January 05, 2023, 22:12 IST

The High Court while quashing the FIR and the proceedings against the delivery partner imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 on the state government. (File Photo)

The High Court whereas quashing the FIR and the proceedings in opposition to the supply accomplice imposed a value of Rs 20,000 on the state authorities. (File Photo)

The High Court famous that the provisions of rash driving can be relevant provided that a human being is injured and never canine or pets

A division bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan has quashed an FIR in opposition to a 20-year-old Swiggy supply accomplice for allegedly by accident killing a road canine whereas delivering meals.

The complainant on April 11, 2022, was feeding road canine when he noticed the Swiggy accomplice whereas using on his bike operating right into a canine that was crossing the street. The supply accomplice and the canine each suffered accidents. However, the canine later died.

The applicant was a final-year pupil of Diploma in Electronics Telecommunication and was 18 years outdated on the time of the incident.

The advocate for the supply agent argued that the petitioner was on the supply job and was using at a velocity of 45 kmph, whereby, the utmost restrict was 65 kmph, close to the Marine Lines. He submitted that when all of a sudden a stray canine got here on the street, the applicant tried to save lots of the canine and utilized brakes on his bike. However, the accident couldn’t be prevented and the petitioner and the canine sustained accidents and the canine died.

The High Court mentioned Section 279 of the IPC pertains to whoever drives any car on any public method in a way to hazard human life or is prone to trigger damage or harm to some other individual. Further Section 337 additionally talks about endangering human life.

The courtroom noticed that the important elements had been lacking in the case and noticed that, “No doubt, a canine/cat is handled as a baby or as a member of the family by their homeowners, however fundamental biology tells us that they aren’t human beings. Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code pertains to acts endangering human life, or prone to trigger damage or harm to some other individual. Thus, legally talking the mentioned Sections could have no software to the details in hand, this important ingredient essential to represent the offenses, being amiss.”

The court said that the aforementioned sections of the IPC can only be invoked against human beings and not animals or pets.

“The said sections do not recognise and make an offense any injury caused otherwise than to human being. Thus, insofar as the injury/death caused to the pet / animal is concerned, the same would not constitute offenses under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code,” it mentioned.

The division bench mentioned that Section 429 (mischief) of IPC would additionally not be relevant since there was no mens rea to commit the mentioned act.

The courtroom famous that the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act wouldn’t be relevant as there was no intent to trigger dying and that nothing was proven by the prosecution to point that the petitioner was driving past the velocity restrict stipulated on the street.

While noting that the act of registering FIR by police defies logic, the courtroom noticed, “The software of these Sections by the Marine Drive Police clearly exhibits non-application of thoughts. How Sections 279, 337, and 429 of the Indian Penal Code might have been utilized to the case in hand, even from a naked perusal of these Sections, defies logic. The police being the custodian of regulation, should be extra circumspect and cautious while registering FIRs and of course later, while submitting chargesheet.”

The High Court while quashing the FIR and the proceedings against the delivery partner imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 on the state government for registering an FIR and filing the chargesheet. The court directed the state to pay the cost to the petitioner.

Read all of the Latest India News right here

Source hyperlink


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here