09.10.2026 Item No.13 Ct. No. 34 nb CRR 1967 of 2025 With IA No. CRAN 3 of 2025 In the matter of: Aradhana Singh. ...… petitioner. Mr. Biswanath Cjhatterjee, Mr. Sobham Kuamr Pathak, Ms. Sayonee Bera, .…For the Petitioner. Ms. Manaswita Mukherjee,, …… for the O.P. No.2. Mr. Pritam Roy, …. For the State. 1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner in compliance with a direction passed by this Court on 06.10.2026 is also taken on record. The copy of the same has been served upon the opposite parties. 2. The instant revisional application has been filed for quashing of the proceeding being New Alipore P.S. Case No. 35/25 dated March 18, 2025 under Section 316 (2) of the BNS pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South). 3. The dispute arose between the parties on the basis of the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 and the subject matter of such dispute was a Street Dog, aged about six or seven months. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that she actually rescued the dog in a very poor condition and thereafter, she took all necessary steps for giving treatment and then expressed to give the said dog on permanent adoption basis to the petitioner without any monetary consideration. 5. On the contrary the contention of the opposite party no.2 is that the custody of the dog was taken by the petitioner completely without any legal adoption and the dispute cropped up between the parties over the custody of the said Puppy. 6. The Puppy was rescued in the month of November, 2024 and the present petitioner alleges to be custodian of the said dog since then. The instant revisional application was filed in the year 2025 for quashing of the complaint proceeding emanated from the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2. 7. On behalf of the opposite party, it has been alleged that the dog was taken without following the formalities and without taking any permission from the present opposite party no.2, who originally rescued the said dog. However, in respect of such complaint, the investigation continued when this revisional application was filed before this Court for quashing. 8. In the meantime considerable time has elapsed, and the said puppy is now grown into a dog aged about two years. When the matter was taken up for consideration by this Court the dog was still in the custody of the present petitioner and the opposite party no .2 expressed her desire to see the dog and to ascertain the wellbeing of the said dog. 2 9. Having regard to the innocuous nature of prayer made by the opposite party no.2 ,this Court allowed such prayer with consent of the parties and permitted her to visit the dog on a specified date and a specified time , in presence of the O.C of the concerned police station . Accordingly, the direction was given to the O.C. of the concerned police station to be present and the opposite party no.2 was allowed to visit the dog. 10. After such visitation, prima facie, the report submitted by the O.C. revealed that the dog is otherwise in good state of health and there is no adverse situation for which criminal case should be proceeded further. Further direction was given to the petitioner to submit medical report as well as a current photograph of the said dog and the report has been placed before this Court. 11. Upon conspectus of the entire situation, this Court is of the considered view that both the parties being compassionate towards animals and having demonstrated their concern for the welfare of those voiceless creatures ,deserve appreciation for their dedication and the contribution to the society. Their efforts in extending care and protection to the animal who are unable to express their needs and sufferings in words, reflects a commendable sense of responsibility and compassion towards animals . 12. Having regard to their love for the animal this Court is also of the view that both of them should work together in this 3 field having similar sense of empathy and compassion which would be beneficial for the society and specially the poor voiceless animals 13. Therefore before this Court, after such development, there remains no reason to allow the proceeding pending before the learned Court to continue further and the entire proceeding pending before the Learned Court should be quashed. 14. On the request made by the learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2, the permission is given to her to visit the dog once in a month with prior permission of the petitioner subject to the condition to maintain proper ambiance without creating any such situation which may be detrimental to the wellbeing of the said dog. 15. In view of the above, this revisional application stands disposed of. The entire proceeding pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 parganas South is hereby quashed against the petitioner . 16. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.) 4