- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42544 CRL.P No. 3308 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3308 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C.D. JOY, S/O SRI. C.V. DEVASSY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.B-902, LIBERTY SQUARE APARTMENT, GUBBALALA, 80 FEET ROAD, GUBBALALA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 061. 2. SMT. MINI K L W/O SRI C.D. JOY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. B-902, LIBERTY SQUARE APARTMENT, GUBBALALA, 80 FEET ROAD, GUBBALALA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 061. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRIYAMVADA J, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42544 CRL.P No. 3308 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION. 2. SRI. SUSHANTH HEGDE S/O SRI ANNIHALLI HEGDE AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS RESIDING AT NO.A-901, LIBERTY SQUARE APARTMENT, GUBBALALA, 80 FEET ROAD, GUBBALALA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 061 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SANDEEP HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.11826/2023 VIDE CHARGE SHEET NO.158/2023 DATED 02.09.2023 IN CR.NO.0267/2023, REGISTERED BY THE THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 289 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42544 CRL.P No. 3308 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have prayed for the following relief in the instant criminal petition. "The Petitioners respectfully submit that this Hon'ble court may kindly allow the present petition and quash the entire proceedings in CC No.11826/2023 vide Charge Sheet No.158/2023 dated 02.09.2023 in Crime No.0267/2023, registered by the Thalaghattapura Police station for offences punishable under Section 289 of the IPC on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant on the fact s and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice." 2. The allegation made against the petitioners in the charge sheet is as follows: "ೋಾೋಪಣ ಪಯ ಅಂಕಣ ನಂ: 12 ರ ನಮೂರುವ ಆೋ-1 ಮತು ಆೋ 2 ರವರು ಾಗೂ ಾ! 1 ರವರು ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ನಗರ ತಲಘಟಪ%ರ &ೕ' (ಾ)ಾ ಸರಹ,ನ ಗುಬ./ಾಳದ 80 ಅ2 ರ ೆಯ°èರುವ ಬ3 ¸ÉÌ÷éÃ4 ಅ5ಾ63 7ಂ6 ನ°è 8ಾಸ8ಾ9ದು,, :ಾಂಕ 06/07/2023 ;ೆ<=ೆ> ಸು?ಾರು 09.00 ಗಂ@ೆ ಸಮಯದ, ಾ! 1 ರವರ ಸು?ಾರು 3 ವಷ3 6 Bಂಗಳ ªÀÄUÀ ಮಕCಳ DೊEೆ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42544 CRL.P No. 3308 of 2024 ಆಟ8ಾಡು8ಾಗ ಆೋ 2 ರವರ :ಾG ಾ! 1 ರವರ ಮಗನ ಎಡ=ಾನ EೊIೆ=ೆ ಕJKದು,, ಮೂರು ಹ®ÄèಗಳL :ಾngÀÄvÀÛzÉ ಆೋ 2 ರವರು ಮಕCಳL ಆಟ8ಾಡುವ ಸMಳNೆC ತಮO :ಾGಯನುP ಕೆದುNೊಂಡು ಬಂದು :ಾGಯನುP ತಮO DೊEೆ Q2ದುPÉƼÀîzÉà Rಲ3SEೆ ಮತು, ;ೇDಾವ¨ÁÝTತನದ Nಾರಣ ಸದT :ಾGಯು ಾ! 1 ರವರ ಮಗR=ೆ ಕJKರುವ%ದು ತRUೆGಂದ ದೃಢಪngÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ಆದ,Tಂದ ಸದT :ಾGಯ ?ಾೕಕರರುಗXಾದ ಆೋ 1 ಮತು ಆೋ 2 ರವರ YರುದZ ಕಲಂ 289 L¦.TೕEಾ[ ೋಾೋಪಣ ಪ," 3. In short, the allegation made against the petitioners is that they own a dog. They live in an apartment. Petitioner No.2, who is the wife of petitioner No.1, took the dog in the common area of the apartment, which is accessible to all the residents of the apartment and the dog bit a three and half year old child of respondent No.2, because of which the child sustained injuries. Hence, the petitioners are charged under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). 4. The case of the petitioners is that the negligence is attributable to the part of the child of respondent No.2, who himself went near the dog. It is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42544 CRL.P No. 3308 of 2024 further submitted that the dog was taken to the common area by petitioner No.2 alone and not by petitioner No.1 and he was unaware of it. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the dog in question itself is a dangerous animal and it is the duty of the owners to ensure that it is not taken out in a common area. Even if it is taken out in a common area, its mouth is required to be closed so that it does not bite anybody. On the said ground, it is prayed that the criminal petition be dismissed. 6. When a person has a pet animal, it is his responsibility to ensure that it does not cause any harm to anybody. 7. Merely because petitioner No.2 took the dog to the common area will not absolve petitioner No.1 of the responsibility. Whether he had given the required consent or negligence is attributable to him or not is a matter of trial. Similarly, whether petitioner No.2 took all the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42544 CRL.P No. 3308 of 2024 necessary care and the incident happened only because of the fault of respondent No.2 or his child is also a matter of trial. The allegations disclose that petitioner No.2 took the dog to the common area of the apartment complex, where it has bitten the child of respondent No.2. This in my opinion, Prima facie attracts the provisions of Section 289 of Indian Penal Code. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9