Dog Died at Pet Boarding Under Suspicious Circumstances — Legal Remedies Under BNS and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.

Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.

Priya Nair had trusted a pet boarding facility in Indore with her eleven-year-old Labrador, Bruno, when she travelled out of the city for a family function in late March 2025. Bruno had lived with her family for over a decade. He wasn't simply an animal to them — he was woven into their daily lives, their routines, their mornings and nights.

She left Bruno on 29 March 2025 at a registered-looking operation called Sharma Pet Stay and Hostel, located in the Vijay Nagar area of Indore. The facility was managed by one Deepak Sharma. Within roughly 40 hours of check-in, Priya received a phone call informing her that Bruno had been "found unresponsive." No prior warning. No emergency intimation. No timeline of events.

When Priya's brother Rohit Nair rushed to the facility, he was first turned away at the gate, then asked to return later, and eventually told that Bruno had already died. The CCTV system was said to be "not functioning." The post-mortem examination revealed internal congestion in respiratory organs, a completely empty stomach despite assurances of regular feeding, and fibrous material around the snout. The findings pointed unmistakably toward gross negligence and possible deliberate cruelty.

Priya had initially approached a local general practitioner advocate who filed a basic complaint, but police did not register an FIR. The matter seemed stalled. After approaching Advocate Sudhir Rao, the legal strategy was restructured — a private complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate under the relevant BNS provisions and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, accompanied by a detailed application to the Superintendent of Police. The case was taken cognizance of, and the boarding facility owner faced formal legal proceedings for the first time. The structured approach made the difference between a complaint that went nowhere and one that received judicial attention.

Advice in Such Cases

Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.

Get the post-mortem done immediately: Don't delay the veterinary post-mortem examination. Request a government veterinary officer to conduct it and insist that findings be documented in writing. This is the single most critical piece of evidence in any case involving suspicious animal death.

Preserve all communication records: Save every WhatsApp message, call log, receipt, and intake form exchanged with the boarding facility. Don't delete anything. Screenshot and back up immediately.

File a written complaint with the Animal Welfare Board: Simultaneously file a formal written complaint with the Animal Welfare Board of India and the local municipal authority responsible for licensing pet boarding establishments. These parallel actions strengthen the criminal complaint.

Cases involving animal cruelty, negligence at boarding facilities, and suspicious deaths of pets sit at the intersection of criminal law, animal welfare legislation, and evidentiary procedure. And here's the thing — this category of matter involves nuances that general practitioners may not regularly encounter. Engaging an advocate who handles animal cruelty and criminal negligence matters with regularity typically leads to faster cognizance and a more focused legal strategy.

Applicable Sections of Law

• Section 325 BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), 2023: Mischief causing damage to property, including animals treated as property in legal contexts — applicable where death results from deliberate or reckless conduct.
• Section 316(2) BNS: Culpable homicide considerations where recklessness and gross negligence cause death — applied analogously in animal cruelty matters involving fatal outcomes through wilful neglect.
• Section 238 BNS: Causing disappearance of evidence and destruction of material capable of being used in a proceeding — relevant where CCTV is claimed non-functional or evidence appears tampered with.
• Section 351(2) and Section 352 BNS: Criminal intimidation and intentional insult — applicable if the facility personnel threatened or obstructed the complainant's family from accessing the premises or the animal.
• Section 11, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: Treating any animal in a manner causing unnecessary pain or suffering, failing to provide adequate food, drink, or shelter — the primary provision governing boarding facility negligence.
• Section 3(5) BNS: Common intention provisions, applicable if multiple persons at the facility acted in concert to conceal or cause harm.
• Section 291 and Section 61 BNS: Negligent conduct and public nuisance provisions, applicable to unregulated boarding setups operating without adequate safety infrastructure.

Punishment and Penalties

• Section 325 BNS: Punishment up to 5 years imprisonment, or fine, or both. Cognizable, bailable, and non-compoundable in aggravated circumstances.
• Section 238 BNS: Imprisonment up to 7 years with fine. Cognizable and non-bailable.
• Section 351(2) BNS: Imprisonment up to 7 years, or fine, or both. Cognizable and non-bailable.
• Section 11, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: For a first offence, fine not less than Rs. 10 and not exceeding Rs. 50; for subsequent offences, fine up to Rs. 100 or imprisonment up to 3 months or both — and the court may direct forfeiture of the animal. Cognizable. Frankly, the penalties under this Act are widely considered inadequate, which is exactly why BNS provisions are crucial to invoke alongside it.

Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case

Get this right from day one. The criminal complaint and FIR must be filed at the police station within whose territorial jurisdiction the pet boarding facility is physically located. In the illustrative case above, that would be the police station covering Vijay Nagar, Indore. If police refuse to register the FIR, a private complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) lies before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) having local jurisdiction over the facility's address. Filing at the wrong station or the wrong court can result in procedural delays and dismissal at the threshold stage — so jurisdiction isn't a technicality you can fix later.

What if Police Refuse to File FIR?

Make no mistake, police reluctance in animal cruelty cases is common. Here's what you can do:

• Written complaint to the Superintendent of Police: Under Section 173(4) BNSS, if the officer in charge refuses to record an FIR, you may send the substance of the information in writing to the Superintendent of Police of the district, who is then bound to investigate or direct a subordinate officer to do so.
• Private complaint before Judicial Magistrate: Under Section 175(3) BNSS, the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence on a private complaint and direct the police to conduct an inquiry or register the case.
• High Court writ petition: As a last resort, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the relevant High Court seeking a direction to register the FIR is maintainable. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP, 2014.
• Complaint to the State Animal Welfare Board and District Collector: A parallel administrative complaint keeps institutional pressure active while the criminal route is pursued.

Rights of the Accused

• Right against self-incrimination: Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the accused can't be compelled to be a witness against himself. The boarding facility owner cannot be forced to make statements that incriminate them.
• Right to legal representation: Under Article 22(1), the accused has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice from the moment of arrest.
• Right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours: Under Section 58 BNSS, an arrested person must be brought before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding travel time.
• Right to know grounds of arrest and access FIR copy: Under Section 47 BNSS, the arresting officer must inform the accused of the grounds of arrest. A copy of the FIR is to be provided free of cost.
• Right to bail hearings: Even in non-bailable offences, the accused may apply for bail before the competent court at the earliest opportunity.

Bail Provisions

Bailable or non-bailable — it depends entirely on which sections are invoked. Section 325 BNS is bailable; Section 238 BNS is non-bailable. Where non-bailable sections are included, the accused may apply for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS before the Sessions Court or the High Court prior to arrest. After arrest, regular bail lies under Section 480 BNSS (bailable offences, as a matter of right) or Section 483 BNSS (non-bailable offences, at the court's discretion). Typical bail conditions in such matters include surrender of passport, a personal bond with surety, and a direction not to tamper with evidence or contact the complainant. Now, before you act — getting bail conditions structured correctly from the outset matters significantly, which is why domain-specific counsel makes a real difference at this stage.

Quashing of FIR / Case

Under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court retains inherent powers to quash an FIR where no prima facie offence is made out from the averments in the complaint, where the proceedings constitute an abuse of the court's process, or where the matter has been genuinely compounded between parties. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992, the Supreme Court laid down the categories where quashing is permissible. But in pet cruelty cases involving forensic post-mortem evidence, internal organ findings, and witness testimony, quashing is difficult to obtain because the documentary record typically supports a prima facie case. The facility owner would need to demonstrate that the FIR discloses no cognizable offence whatsoever — a high bar on these facts.

If You Are the Victim

• Act within hours, not days: Request an immediate veterinary post-mortem from a government veterinary officer before the body is handled, cremated, or returned without documentation.
• Photograph everything: Photograph the animal's body, the leash, harness, any fibrous material, the terrace or area where the animal was found, and the general condition of the facility.
• Do not confront the facility owner alone: Confrontations without legal counsel can be used against you or result in evidence being concealed faster. Take a witness and document every interaction.
• File a written complaint immediately: Submit a written complaint to the local police station, the Superintendent of Police, and the nearest Animal Welfare organisation on record — all on the same day if possible.
• Approach an advocate with relevant experience: A lawyer who regularly handles criminal negligence and animal cruelty matters will know exactly which parallel complaints, forensic requests, and judicial applications are needed from day one.

Documents You Must Keep Ready

• Your Aadhaar card and PAN card (identity proof for complainant)
• The original intake/boarding receipt or agreement signed with the facility
• All WhatsApp chats, SMS messages, and call logs with the facility owner or staff
• The veterinary post-mortem report in original, with the examining officer's details
• Photographs and videos of the animal's body, the facility, and the surrounding area
• Any payment receipts, bank transfer records, or UPI transaction screenshots showing boarding charges paid
• Vaccination records, prior veterinary health certificates, and the animal's medical history (to establish condition at time of handover)
• Witness statements — written and signed — from family members or others who accompanied you to the facility

What Evidence Is Required?

• Veterinary post-mortem report: Primary evidence. Findings of empty stomach, respiratory congestion, fibrous material, and cardiac stress are direct indicators of negligence or cruelty.
• Boarding intake documentation: Establishes that the animal was handed over alive and in good health — critical to fix liability on the facility.
• CCTV footage or evidence of its absence: If cameras were non-functional, the circumstances of that failure become relevant. Expert testimony on CCTV tampering may be sought under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Witness testimony: Testimony of family members who visited the facility, received phone calls, or observed conditions at the premises.
• Expert veterinary opinion: An independent veterinarian's opinion correlating the post-mortem findings with possible causes of death strengthens the prosecution case materially.
• Facility licensing records: Evidence of whether the facility held valid municipal licensing records at the time of the incident.

Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India

Facing a similar matter? Speak to a criminal lawyer in Delhi — Advocate Sudhir Rao appears in bail, trial and appellate matters before the Delhi District Courts, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.