Bombay HC directs Govt To Pay Rs 20K Cost To Swiggy Agent booked for accidentally killing street dog

A Division Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj Chavan recently quashed an FIR lodged against a 20-year-old Swiggy Delivery partner for allegedly injuring a street dog while delivering a food order 

The complainant, on April 11, 2022, was feeding street dogs when he saw the swiggy partner who while riding on his bike, met with an accident with a dog which was crossing the road. The delivery partner and the dog suffered injuries. However, the dog succumbed to injuries.

The complainant was a final year student of Diploma in Electronics & Telecommunication and was 18 years old at the time of the said incident.

The advocate for the delivery agent argued that the petitioner was at the delivery job and was riding at a speed of 45 kmph, wherein, the maximum limit was 65 kmph, near the Marine Lines. He submitted that when suddenly a stray dog came on the road, the applicant attempted to save the dog and applied brakes of his bike, however, the accident could not be avoided and the petitioner and the dog sustained injuries and the dog died.

The High Court stressed that Section 279 of the IPC states that whoever drives any vehicle on any public way in a manner to endanger human life or is likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Further Section 337 also talks about endangering human life.

The court, therefore, held that the essential Ingredients were missing in the present case. It observed, 

"No doubt, a dog/cat is treated as a child or as a family member by their owners, but basic biology tells us that they are not human beings. Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code pertains to acts endangering human life, or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Thus, legally speaking the said Sections will have no application to the facts in hand, this essential ingredient necessary to constitute the offenses, being amiss."

The court said that the said Sections of the IPC can only be invoked for hurting human beings and not animals or pets,

"The said sections do not recognize and make an offence 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."

The division bench said that Section 429, IPC i.e., Mischief would also not be applicable in the present matter since there was no mens rea to commit the said act.

Further, while noting that the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animal would not be applicable as there was no intent to cause death, court held that nothing was shown by the prosecution to show that the petitioner was driving beyond the speed limit stipulated on the said road.

While noting that the said act of registering FIR by police defied logic, the court observed,

"The application of these Sections by the Marine Drive Police clearly shows non- application of mind. How Sections 279, 337, and 429 of the Indian Penal Code could have been applied to the case in hand, even from a bare perusal of these Sections, defies logic. The police being the custodian of law, need to be more circumspect and cautious whilst registering FIR’s and of course later, whilst filing chargesheet."

Therefore, the High Court while quashing the FIR and the proceedings against the delivery partner imposed a cost of Rs. 20000 on the state government for registering FIR and filing the chargesheet. The court directed the State to pay the cost to the petitioner.