Pet Owners Duty-Bound To Prevent Harm Caused By Their Pets: Calcutta High Court

Last Updated:May 29, 2025, 15:14 IST

The offence under IPC Section 289 centres on negligent handling of animals and the probable danger they pose, not just actual injury, the High Court observed

Refusing to quash a complaint involving a dog attack, the court cited IPC Section 289 and stressed the owner’s responsibility to ensure pets don’t pose a threat to human life.

A pet owner is undeniably duty-bound to exercise a certain degree of care and take sufficient steps to prevent their pet from causing harm, the Calcutta High Court has said.

Referring to Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with negligent conduct with respect to animals, the High Court said, “This section unequivocally imposes a duty on the owner or possessor of an animal to take adequate measures to prevent any probable danger to human life or grievous hurt from such animal."

The High Court further observed that the provision specifically uses “knowingly or negligently omits", emphasising either actual knowledge of the animal’s harmful propensity or a lack of due care in its management.

This observation was made by the High Court while dealing with a case concerning the quashing of a complaint, wherein the complainant was allegedly attacked by 10 to 12 pet dogs while on the roof of his residential building.

The complainant, one Dipan Banerjee, stated in the FIR that the alleged attack caused him to lose balance, fall, and sustain injuries. He specifically averred that these pet dogs were not properly chained and roamed freely, thereby creating a perilous environment and posing a significant threat to human life.

Noting that the complaint highlighted a broader concern regarding the practice of keeping “many dogs… unchained on the roof of a housing", which, if true, could indeed pose a “threat to human life" regardless of immediate physical injury, the High Court refused to quash the complaint.

“Quashing the proceedings at this juncture would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution based on contentious factual claims. The Trial Court is the appropriate forum to delve into the nuances of the evidence, assess witness credibility, and determine the allegations’ veracity," it said.

Referring to the allegation, the High Court also said that the case did not fall into categories where the allegations were so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reasonably conclude there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

Cause Title: Suman Ray @ Suman Roy -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.

Location :

First Published:

News india Pet Owners Duty-Bound To Prevent Harm Caused By Their Pets: Calcutta High Court