KOLKATA: Pet owners must ensure their animals do not harm others, Calcutta high court has said in a recent order, turning down a man’s plea to quash a criminal case pertaining to a dog attack on a neighbour.“The potential gravity of a dog attack on a human, capable of causing serious injury or even posing a threat to life, cannot be overstated. Therefore, a pet owner is undeniably duty-bound to exercise a certain degree of care and take sufficient steps to prevent their pet from causing harm,” Justice Uday Kumar said in his order on May 23.The pet owner from Sonarpur, on Kolkata’s outskirts, was charged under Section 289 of IPC, pertaining to “negligent conduct with respect to animals”. This followed a complaint from the neighbour alleging he was attacked by 10-12 of the man’s pet dogs on the terrace of their apartment building in 2022, leading to injuries. In his HC plea, the pet owner said the charges were based on “falsehood and inaccuracies”. He claimed he had only one dog and that a medical report of the complainant mentioned there was “no obvious external injury”.But Justice Kumar cited IPC Section 289 to say it imposed a “duty on the owner or possessor of an animal” to take adequate measures to prevent any probable danger to human life or grievous hurt to others. The judge pointed out that the section specifically uses the words “knowingly or negligently omits”, emphasising either actual knowledge of the animal’s harmful propensity or a lack of due care in its management.While the police chargesheet mentioned that “10-12 dogs” belonged to the accused, the pet owner disputed it, highlighting the absence of documentary and photographic evidence. Justice Kumar held that the accused could highlight these lapses during trial, adding the HC could not assume “the role of a fact-finding authority”.“Even if the injury was not externally obvious, being attacked by 10-12 dogs and falling on a roof could potentially lead to internal injuries, non-visible bruises, or psychological trauma. Furthermore, the complaint highlights a broader concern regarding the practice of keeping ‘many dogs…unchained on the roof of a housing (complex)’, which, if true, could indeed pose a threat to human life, regardless of immediate physical injury,” the judge observed.