The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a unique criminal proceeding after a simple check of the calendar completely dismantled the allegations made against a senior citizen. The elderly man had approached the high court seeking relief because an ongoing criminal case from five years ago was preventing him from getting his passport renewed. What started as a dispute over an alleged animal attack quickly turned into a legal scrutiny of police investigation methods when glaring discrepancies came to light during the court hearings.
The Dog Attack Complaint and the Missing Court Schedule
During the proceedings, the lawyer who had filed the original complaint explained that on November 28, 2021, he was riding his motorcycle from his office to attend court proceedings. As he reached in front of a coffee house, a pack of ten Golden Retriever dogs allegedly attacked him simultaneously. The lawyer claimed that this sudden attack prevented him from reaching the court on time. Acting on this complaint, the police registered an FIR against the senior citizen under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code and eventually filed a chargesheet.
A Glance at the Calendar Changes Everything
The petitioner told the court that he had no prior knowledge of the criminal case registered against him and only discovered it when he applied for passport renewal. As Justice M. Nagaprasanna heard the petition, his attention was drawn to the specific date mentioned in the complaint. The judge noted that November 28, 2021, was actually a Sunday. Since courts remain closed on Sundays, the premise that the advocate was rushing to attend court proceedings on that particular day fell apart immediately. Upon realizing this, Justice M. Nagaprasanna questioned the complainant about which court operates on a Sunday.
Contradictions in Police Investigation
Confronted with this reality, the complainant had no adequate explanation. The court then turned its attention to the police, questioning why investigating officers failed to verify such a basic detail before filing a chargesheet. Furthermore, the court highlighted stark contradictions between the original complaint and the police chargesheet. While the complaint mentioned an attack by ten dogs, the chargesheet referred to only five dogs. The sequence of events also differed, with the complaint stating the lawyer fled the spot while the chargesheet presented a completely different version of the incident.
Proceedings Terminated as Abuse of Process
Advocate Vaishali Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, termed the complaint baseless and pointed out that the police inspected the incident site nearly five months after the alleged date. Justice Nagaprasanna criticized the police investigation as mysterious and ambiguous, noting that pursuing such flawed matters places an unnecessary burden on judicial resources. Declaring that continuing the case under Section 289 of the IPC would amount to an abuse of the legal process, the high court ordered the complete quashing of the criminal proceedings against the senior citizen.
