Bombay High Court: Stopping Stray Dog Feeding in Non-Designated Areas Not a Crime or ‘Wrongful Restraint’

The Bombay High Court has ruled that preventing feeding of stray dogs in non-designated spots does not amount to wrongful restraint, quashing an FIR against a Pune resident.

Pune| December 24,2025: The Bombay High Court has ruled that preventing someone from feeding stray dogs in non-designated areas, such as society entrances or near school bus points, does not amount to an offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and does not qualify as “wrongful restraint” or “voluntary obstruction,” according to the court’s judgment delivered on December 18, 2025. This decision came while quashing a First Information Report registered by the Hinjewadi police against a 42-year-old Pune resident who had been accused of stopping a woman and her friends from feeding stray dogs at the gate of a housing society. The complainant had alleged that the man and other residents had blocked her from feeding the animals and even prevented her from leaving in her vehicle, which led to charges under Sections 126(2) for wrongful restraint and 351(1) for criminal intimidation under the BNS. However, the bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh D. Patil examined the factual matrix and noted that the feeding was occurring in areas that were not designated feeding spots under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, which require identification of specific locations for feeding stray animals. The court emphasised that actions taken to ensure safety in such sensitive zones, particularly where children board and alight from school buses and near society gates, cannot automatically be construed as obstructing legal rights or criminal conduct.
Relying on established Supreme Court interpretations of what constitutes wrongful restraint, the bench observed that the essence of the offence involves a voluntary obstruction to prevent a person from proceeding in a direction in which they have a legal right to go; in this case, merely objecting to feeding in an inappropriate area did not meet that threshold. The court also took into account the nearly four-month delay between the alleged incident, which took place in September 2024, and the filing of the FIR in January 2025, noting that the delay reinforced its view that the matter did not attract penal consequences under the BNS. In its reasoning, the High Court highlighted that a resident’s concern for the safety of children and other members of the society, especially in light of reported stray dog bite incidents, could justify objections to feeding activities in prohibited spots and did not necessarily reflect criminal intent. Legal experts welcomed the ruling, saying it provided clarity on the scope of Sections 126 and associated provisions of the BNS, while underlining the importance of designated feeding areas as envisaged by law and policy. The bench reiterated that individual disagreements over animal welfare practices, such as feeding stray dogs, must be addressed through civil discourse and adherence to municipal norms rather than immediate recourse to criminal law. The judgment is expected to influence similar cases where residents or animal welfare volunteers clash over feeding practices in urban settings, reaffirming that lawful objection, when based on safety or regulatory concerns, does not equate to unlawful restraint. By clarifying the limits of criminal liability in such disputes, the Bombay High Court’s decision also sheds light on how courts balance individual rights with community safety and statutory frameworks governing animal welfare.

Follow us On Our Social media Handles :
Instagram
Youtube
Facebook
Twitter

Also Read- Pune