Pune: Bombay High Court Rules Obstructing Stray Dog Feeding In Non-Designated Areas Is Not ‘Wrongful Restraint’
Pune: Bombay High Court Rules Obstructing Stray Dog Feeding In Non-Designated Areas Is Not ‘Wrongful Restraint’
Pune, December 24, 2025: The Bombay High Court has ruled that preventing a person from feeding stray dogs in non-designated areas does not amount to “wrongful restraint” under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS). The court quashed an FIR registered by Pune Police against a 42-year-old man who was accused of stopping a woman and her friends from feeding stray dogs near the entrance of a housing society in Hinjewadi.
The order was passed on December 18 by a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh D. Patil while hearing a criminal application seeking to set aside an FIR lodged in January 2025 at the Hinjewadi police station. The FIR had invoked Sections 126(2) (wrongful restraint) and 351(1) (criminal intimidation) of the BNS, among other provisions.
According to the complainant, she had gone to a residential society in Hinjewadi to feed stray dogs when the applicant and other residents objected. The FIR alleged that the applicant attempted to snatch her mobile phone when she began recording the argument. It was further claimed that as she returned to her car, the applicant stood in front of the vehicle and prevented her from leaving.
The applicant, through his counsel, argued that feeding stray dogs at that location had caused inconvenience and safety concerns for residents. He submitted that the area in question was close to the society’s entry and exit points and was also used by schoolchildren boarding and alighting from buses. The applicant further stated that nearly 40 dog-bite incidents had been reported in the society over the past 11 months and that the place was not a designated feeding spot under applicable rules.
After examining the facts, the High Court observed that stopping someone from feeding stray dogs in non-designated areas, particularly near society gates and school bus points, cannot be considered wrongful restraint under Section 126 of the BNS. The bench referred to the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which provide for designated feeding areas for stray animals.
The court also noted that the exception under Section 126(1) of the BNS clearly states that obstruction carried out in good faith, where a person believes they have a lawful right to do so, does not constitute an offence. Relying on earlier Supreme Court judgments, the bench reiterated that such acts cannot automatically attract criminal liability.
Additionally, the High Court took note of the nearly four-month delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident took place in September 2024 while the complaint was filed in January 2025. Citing these factors, the court allowed the application and quashed the FIR along with all subsequent proceedings pending before the magistrate’s court.
