The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings arising from a custody dispute over a rescued street dog between two women, finding that the animal was being properly cared for and that continuing the case served no purpose. The Court also permitted the complainant to visit the dog once a month, subject to the consent of its present custodian and safeguards for the animal’s welfare.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, in an order dated October 9, appreciated the concern shown by both women for the rescued animal and encouraged them to cooperate in protecting animals that cannot communicate their suffering or needs.
The Court reached its decision after examining a police report, veterinary records and a recent photograph of the dog. The material indicated that the animal was healthy and faced no adverse circumstances requiring further criminal proceedings.
Dispute Over Rescue and Adoption
The controversy began after two women asserted competing claims over a street puppy that was approximately six to seven months old when the disagreement arose.
The petitioner maintained that she had rescued the puppy in November 2024 when it was in poor health. According to her, she arranged medical treatment and continued caring for the animal. She also expressed her intention to adopt the dog permanently without seeking or paying any monetary consideration.
The complainant challenged this account, claiming that she had initially rescued the puppy. She alleged that the petitioner had taken custody without obtaining her permission or completing the prescribed adoption formalities.
Following the complaint, criminal proceedings were initiated. The petitioner approached the High Court in 2025 seeking their quashing.
Police Report Confirms Dog’s Well-Being
During the hearing, the Court observed that considerable time had passed since the dispute began and that the puppy had grown into a dog approximately two years old.
The animal remained with the petitioner, while the complainant expressed a desire to see it and verify its condition.
With the petitioner’s agreement, the Court arranged a visit on a specified date and time in the presence of the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned.
Following the visit, the police submitted a report confirming that the dog was in good health. The report did not disclose any circumstances warranting the continuation of the criminal case.
The Court also considered the animal’s medical records and latest photograph before determining that there was no justification for keeping the proceedings pending.
Court Appreciates Both Women’s Compassion
While resolving the dispute, Justice Das acknowledged that both women had demonstrated genuine concern for the animal’s welfare.
The Court observed that their efforts to provide care and protection to an animal unable to express its needs or suffering reflected compassion and a sense of responsibility.
It further recognised their contribution towards animal welfare and expressed the hope that they would work together in the interests of animals requiring care and protection.
The High Court consequently quashed the entire criminal proceedings.
At the same time, it allowed the complainant to meet the dog once every month, provided she obtained prior permission from its current custodian and complied with conditions intended to safeguard the animal’s well-being.
