‘Law not a toy to be played with’: Karnataka HC quashes case against man accused of abducting neighbour’s cat

The defendant in the case had filed a complaint in 2022 against a person in the adjacent apartment complex, alleging that her cat Daisy had been kidnapped and confined, causing stress and emotional trauma to the complainant. The police subsequently filed a chargesheet under Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions relating to intentional insult, intimidation, and insult to a woman’s modesty.

The accused petitioner’s counsel argued that the cat could have jumped from house to house through the windows and might have gone to another place after getting into the petitioner’s house, as it had not stayed there. The CCTV footage also demonstrated the cat jumping between windows. When the woman complainant had enquired about the cat, the accused questioned why he would keep her cat in his home. The counsel for the accused also raised the question of how the alleged offences could arise from a missing cat.

The court noted that as per the Additional State Public Prosecutor, the complainant had not appeared before the court to answer questions, and it seemed to be a frivolous case. The bench stated, “It shocks the conscience of the court as to how the jurisdictional police could have registered the complaint, as there is no offence indicated in the complaint, except missing cat and alleged wrongful custody of the cat in the house of the accused…”

“The entire police machinery gets involved in the case of a missing cat, records statements of neighbours, sees CCTV footage and finds nothing, but files a chargesheet dropping the offences under sections 428 and 429 (mischief by killing or maiming animal) of the IPC, but retaining the offences under sections 504, 506 and 509…,” it added.

The judge observed that the chargesheet contained “retrospective embellishments” of hurling abuses, which was not in the complaint, stating, “The cat named Daisy appears to have driven everyone crazy and even the criminal justice system. The police ought not to have entertained the complaint, which did not indicate any cognisable offence at the outset. As a matter of fact, the complaint does not even indicate a non-cognisable offence. But the police entertained the complaint ostensibly, for extraneous reasons.”