From letters to the Supreme Court to a year-round resource for animals. Read the story

Animal Writes
Contact us

Madras High Court, 1 Sep 2026: PCA section 11(1)(a) is non-cognizable (Balaji v. State, Crl.O.P. No. 9632 of 2026)

Madras High Court, 1 Sep 2026: PCA section 11(1)(a) is non-cognizable (Balaji v. State, Crl.O.P. No. 9632 of 2026)

The Madras High Court delivered a judgment in Balaji v. State, Crl.O.P. No. 9632 of 2026, quashing a criminal case under section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 against a man accused of throwing a stone at a neighbour’s dog that had bitten him. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan held that the offence is non-cognizable, meaning the police cannot arrest without a warrant under section 31 of the Act, and that for a first offence the punishment is a fine of Rs 10 to Rs 50. The court ruled that the police should therefore have taken the magistrate’s permission under section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before registering the first information report. The court also noted that no evidence showed the dog was injured and that the complaint was a counterblast to the petitioner’s own complaint.

Your browser cannot show this PDF here. Use the download link below.

Download PDF (245.9 KB)

Order of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, Madras High Court, . Summary, then the court’s own copy (as uploaded to the court’s judgment portal on ).

On the Madras High Court (Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan) quashed a case under section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act against a man accused of throwing a stone at a neighbour's dog that had bitten him. The court held that the offence is non-cognizable under section 31 of the Act, and that for a first offence the punishment is a fine of Rs 10 to Rs 50. The police should therefore have taken the magistrate's permission under section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before registering the FIR. The court also noted that no evidence showed the dog was injured and that the complaint was a counterblast to the petitioner's own complaint.

Questions about the Madras High Court order in Balaji v. State

Download the official Madras High Court, 1 Sep 2026: PCA section 11(1)(a) is non-cognizable (Balaji v. State, Crl.O.P. No. 9632 of 2026) PDF here (from High Court).

The Madras High Court order in Balaji v. State was delivered on as Crl.O.P. No. 9632 of 2026.

The Madras High Court order in Balaji v. State was issued by High Court. See the original.

Sources

Madras High Court

Read the original (opens in a new tab)Issued by High Court.Summary written by Animal Writes. Read the original before relying on it.

Editorial policyReport a mistake

More in Courts and Judgments

  • Supreme Court judgment of 19 May 2026 on stray dogs (2026 INSC 506)

    Judgment

    Supreme Court judgment of 19 May 2026 on stray dogs (2026 INSC 506)

    The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment of 19 May 2026, dismissed all applications to modify, recall or stay its order of 7 Nov 2025 on removing stray dogs from institutional premises. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria held that the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 do not require dogs to be released back into such premises, and dismissed the challenges to the Animal Welfare Board of India's Standard Operating Procedures. It allowed authorities, after assessment by qualified veterinary experts and within the law, to euthanise rabid, incurably ill or demonstrably dangerous dogs. Every High Court must register a suo motu case to monitor compliance.

  • VINEETA SRINANDAN versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ON ITS OWN MOTION (2025INSC1408)

    Judgment

    VINEETA SRINANDAN versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ON ITS OWN MOTION (2025INSC1408)

    The Supreme Court of India is reviewing a case involving Vineeta Srinandan and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, focusing on the validity of the High Court's judgment regarding an apology refusal. The case arose from a challenge to the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 by Seawoods Estates Ltd., which included an intervention application concerning the actions of Srinandan, a former director. The proceedings took place on 10 Dec 2025.

  • PETA India v CCSEA judgment of the Delhi High Court, 16 September 2025, W.P.(C) 9350/2025

    Judgment

    Delhi High Court judgment of 16 Sep 2025 in PETA India v. CCSEA (Palamur Biosciences), W.P.(C) 9350/2025

    In its PETA India v CCSEA judgment, the Delhi High Court ordered a fresh inspection of Palamur Biosciences within three weeks and closed the petition. Justice Sachin Datta's judgment of 16 September 2025 noted three earlier inspections: by a multidisciplinary committee on 11 and 12 June 2025, a micro-audit on 28 and 29 June, and a court-ordered one on 17 July. The court found the third "mired in controversy", as it was held without the Local Commissioner and PETA India alleged a conflict of interest. The new team is a CCSEA member, a CCMB scientist and the court's Local Commissioner, who may bring a veterinarian. CCSEA must act on any deficiencies found, and the July 2025 bar on new animals ends once the inspection is held.

News about this

  • Madras HC quashes animal cruelty case against man accused of pelting stone at dog that bit him

    News

    Madras HC quashes animal cruelty case against man accused of pelting stone at dog that bit him

    The Madras High Court dismissed an animal-cruelty case against a man who had allegedly thrown a stone at a neighbor's pet dog that bit him. The court ruled that the prosecution lacked sufficient grounds to continue. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan found a procedural lapse because the police investigated the non-cognisable offence under Section 11(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, without obtaining prior permission from the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The court concluded that the entire proceeding was an abuse of the process of law.

  • Madras High Court orders inquiry into unauthorised auction of 200 buffaloes offered by devotees, action against temple executive officer

    News

    Madras High Court orders inquiry into unauthorised auction of 200 buffaloes offered by devotees, action against temple executive officer

    The Madras High Court directed an investigation into the illegal sale of two hundred buffaloes donated by worshippers. The animals had been given to the Arulmigu Pathrakaliamman Temple in Salem District before being unlawfully auctioned off. The court suspected negligence by the Executive Officer and noted that the amount realised from the unauthorised sale of buffaloes was Rs 83,00,000.

  • Madras High Court expresses displeasure on lack of steps to curb stray dog menace

    News

    Madras High Court expresses displeasure on lack of steps to curb stray dog menace

    The Madras High Court expressed dissatisfaction with the absence of actions to address the stray dog problem in Tamil Nadu. The statement was made on 21 Jul 2026 by a bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan during the hearing of a suo motu case. The court pointed out that the stray dog menace continued in the State, with at least one instance being reported daily, and directed Additional Advocate General PV Balasubramniam to sensitise officials on the need for effective control measures.