Non-Recovery Of Protected Wild Animal Not A Ground To Quash Wildlife Protection Act Complaint If Electronic Evidence Exists: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The absence of recovery is a circumstance which may be considered by the learned trial Court along with the other evidence. However, at this stage, the said circumstance cannot be considered in isolation to conclude that the allegations in the complaint are false or that no offence is disclosed." Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that criminal proceedings initiated under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 cannot be quashed at the threshold under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) merely because the protected animal was not physically recovered during departmental inspections.

In a decision dated 24 September 2026, Justice Manisha Batra observed that the absence of physical seizure cannot be assessed in isolation when the prosecution relies upon electronic evidence such as social media posts, videos, and digital records to substantiate allegations of illegal possession and custody.

The case originated from information provided by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India regarding the alleged illegal keeping and display of a Rhesus Macaque—a protected species under Schedule II, Part I of the Act—at a tattoo studio in Chandigarh. Following inspections where the animal was not found, the Wildlife Enforcement Team collected subsequent electronic material and lodged a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 9 read with Sections 2(16)(b), 39, and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioner thereafter invoked the inherent powers of the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint.

The primary question before the court was whether criminal proceedings under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are liable to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS solely due to the non-recovery of the protected wild animal during inspections. The court was also called upon to determine whether the evidentiary value and authenticity of electronic evidence can be conclusively adjudicated in quashing proceedings.

Inherent Powers Under Section 528 BNSS Must Be Exercised Sparingly

Examining the scope of inherent jurisdiction, the court underscored that the threshold to interdict criminal proceedings at an initial stage is exceptionally high. The court observed that it is not tasked with determining whether the material placed on record will ultimately result in conviction, but must only examine if a prima facie offence is disclosed.

The bench emphasized that inherent powers cannot be utilized to choke a legitimate prosecution at the inception when allegations are supported by digital and documentary material. The court remarked that it is a well-settled proposition of law that the inherent jurisdiction of the court is required to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

Absence Of Physical Recovery Does Not Discredit Prosecution Threshold

Addressing the petitioner’s primary contention regarding the lack of physical recovery during inspections, the court held that non-recovery does not automatically invalidate a statutory complaint. The court found that the complaint was not based on bald assertions but cited specific digital evidence collected before and after inspections.

The court noted that the prosecution relied upon videos, screenshots, compact discs, and witness statements to establish custody of the protected animal. Therefore, the absence of seizure during a spot visit is merely a trial circumstance rather than a ground for discharge at the threshold under Section 528 BNSS.

High Court Cannot Conduct Mini-Trial To Assess Electronic Material

Turning to the evidentiary value of the digital records, the High Court held that questions regarding the genuineness and chain of custody of electronic material cannot be resolved in summary proceedings. The court observed that such inquiries fall squarely within the domain of the trial court during the stage of evidence.

Justice Batra made it clear that the authenticity, reliability, and evidentiary value of digital material cannot be finally determined in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS. The bench noted that whether the petitioner retained custody or control of the animal and whether the videos pertained to the same animal are questions requiring appreciation of evidence that cannot be decided by conducting a mini-trial.

Interlocutory Bail And Revision Orders Not Binding On Merits Of Trial

The petitioner had also placed reliance on earlier orders of the revisional court that denied police remand to the Wildlife Department and granted bail. The High Court rejected this submission, clarifying that orders dealing with police remand and bail are interlocutory in nature and do not constitute a conclusive finding on the substantive allegations.

The court also took note of the dismissal of the department's application to file a fresh complaint, observing that the original complaint continued to subsist on valid grounds. The bench held that the defence raised by the accused must be tested on the basis of evidence led before the magistrate, finding no exceptional circumstance to justify pre-trial quashing.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that the complaint and accompanying material disclosed sufficient grounds for trial under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The court clarified that its observations are confined strictly to the quashing petition and will not prejudice the petitioner's defence before the trial court.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026