Witnessed illegal dogfighting? Punjab and Haryana High Court says even strangers can lodge an FIR

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry disposed of the PIL, holding that no further directions were required.

“Thus, if a cognisable offence occurs, even a stranger can lodge an FIR, provided the information so furnished to the police or the concerned competent authority alleges the commission of a cognisable offence. The petitioner is free to lodge an FIR as and when such instances take place or take recourse …in case the police or the competent authority declines to register a cognisable offence,” the high court said in its March 19 order.

Independent probe body already exists

• The high court noted that Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have already been constituted in every district under the chairmanship of respective deputy commissioners, who are entrusted with the duties and functions provided under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
• Accordingly, the court found that the petitioner’s request for the appointment of an independent body to investigate illegal animal fights had already been satisfied by the existing mechanism.
• The court also took note of the affidavits filed by the state confirming the constitution of the concerned authorities under the Act of 1960.
• The high court disposed of the PIL, holding that no further directions were required in view of the existing statutory framework.

• It noted that certain offences under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 are cognisable in terms of Section 31 of the Act.
• Section 11(1) of the Act pertains to treating animals with cruelty and covers any person that beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated.
• Section 31 states that organising, keeping, using or acting in the management of, any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes, is a cognisable offence.
• It was further clarified that in case the police declined to register a First Information Report (FIR), the petitioner may take recourse under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

What the PIL sought

• The present PIL was filed drawing attention to the public cause that certain persons are indulging in private dog fights involving ferocious breeds of dogs, and, allegedly, no preventive or curative action has been taken by the functionaries of the state.
• The petitioner sought a direction to the state to appoint an independent body for investigating the occurrences of illegal animal fights and to file a status report before this high court.
• He also mentioned seeking effective implementation of provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, by way of judicial process and requested to pass any other direction or orders in the interest of justice.

What is illegal dogfighting?

• According to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), illegal dog fighting typically involves dogs, most often pit bull-type breeds, who are forced to fight until they are exhausted, severely injured, or killed.
• It has also been observed that many of these dogs are subjected to painful physical mutilations, such as tail docking and ear cropping, to reduce vulnerability during fights and to prevent opponents from grabbing them.

‘Not absence of law, but failure of enforcement’

Reacting to the development, advocate Varnika Singh, who represented petitioner Bharati Ramachandaran, CEO of the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations (FIAPO), said, “This case clearly shows that the issue is not the absence of law, but the failure of enforcement. When documented evidence, complaints, and even media reports do not result in action, it points to a serious implementation gap.”

“The high court has reinforced that citizens can trigger legal action. The need now is for consistent registration of FIRs and proactive dismantling of organised dog fighting networks,” she added.