Stopping Person from Feeding Stray Dogs Not 'Wrongful Restraint'

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil in the case of Ayyappa Swami v. State of Maharashtra (2025) quashed an FIR lodged against a society resident who allegedly restrained persons from feeding stray dogs at non-designated spots including the society's entry/exit gate and school bus stop area. 

What was the Background of Ayyappa Swami v. State of Maharashtra (2025) Case? 

• The case arose from a housing society in Pune's Hinjewadi area where approximately 40 incidents of dog attacks and bites had occurred. 
• On September 12, 2024, the complainant and her friends were feeding stray dogs in the society premises during school hours, specifically near the school bus pick-up area and the entry/exit footpath of the society. 
• Ayyappa Swami, a resident of the society, told the complainant and her friends that they were feeding stray dogs at a non-designated spot which was not the proper feeding area. 
• An altercation ensued between the parties, with the complainant allegedly abusing and threatening Ayyappa Swami. 
• Ayyappa Swami filed a complaint with the police, which was registered only as a non-cognisable complaint against the dog feeders. 
• After nearly four months, on January 24, 2025, the complainant lodged an FIR against Ayyappa Swami under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging wrongful restraint. 
• The FIR alleged that Ayyappa Swami had wrongfully restrained the complainant and her friends from feeding stray dogs in the society premises. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court examined the essence of Section 126 of the BNS, noting that it requires voluntary obstruction of any person to prevent them from moving in any direction they have a legal right to proceed, signifying that the person is immobilized from proceeding in any direction. 
• The bench held that feeding stray dogs in particular areas, especially footpaths, entry and exit points of the society, and school bus stops where children board and alight school buses, is very crucial for the safety of children. 
• The Court ruled that obstructing persons from feeding stray dogs in these areas cannot be said to be voluntary obstruction within the meaning of Section 126 of the BNS. 
• The judges referred to the provisions of the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 which provide for designated feeding areas for stray dogs. 
• The Court emphasized that stopping a person from wrongfully feeding stray dogs in a non-designated area cannot be said to be restraint within the meaning of Section 126(1) of the BNS Act. 
• The bench noted that the alleged obstruction was not for committing any illegal act but for ensuring the safety of the children of the society, particularly in light of approximately 40 incidents of dog attacks and bites that had occurred in the society. 
• The judges considered the significant delay of nearly four months in lodging the FIR as an additional factor while quashing and setting aside the same. 
• The Court ordered the FIR dated January 24, 2025 to be quashed and set aside. 

What is Section 126 of BNS? 

• Definition: Voluntarily obstructing any person to prevent them fromproceeding in any direction in which they have a right to proceed constitutes wrongful restraint. 
• Essential Elements: The obstruction must be voluntary, intentional, and must prevent the person from moving in a direction they legally have the right to move.
• Exception: Obstructing a private way over land or water is not an offense if the person obstructing has a good faith belief that they have a lawful right to obstruct that way.
• Punishment: The offense is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term extending up to one month, or with a fine extending up to five thousand rupees, or with both.
• Legal Predecessor: This provision was previously covered under Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) before the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. 
• Illustration: If A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, without believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path, thereby preventing Z from passing, A wrongfully restrains Z.
• Good Faith Belief: The exception emphasizes that obstruction based on a genuine, good faith belief of having a lawful right to obstruct does not constitute an offense.
• Right to Proceed: The critical factor is whether the obstructed person has a legal right toproceed in the direction they are being prevented from moving.