The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has declined to quash a complaint against a city-based studio for the illegal act of keeping and displaying a protected monkey species in 2020.
“The complaint and the material accompanying it, when considered at the required threshold, disclose sufficient grounds for the continuation of the proceedings. No exceptional circumstance has been established which may justify interference by this court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction,” the bench of justice Manisha Batra observed while dismissing the plea from one Kamaljit Singh, owner of the studio.
According to the complaint by the department of forest and wildlife, Chandigarh, an information was received from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India regarding the alleged illegal display of a monkey Rhesus Macaque (Macaca mulatta) by a tattoo studio in Sector 35-C, in July 2020. The species is generally brown or grey in hair and is the most common monkey species in India. It is a protected wild animal under Schedule II, Part I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The officials visited the place but did not find the monkey kept at the studio. The accused persons were warned about the legal consequences of keeping or displaying protected wildlife and were also directed not to upload such videos, on the basis of which PETA filed a complaint, on social media.
In August that year, the officials again visited the place as they received electronic material, including videos and screenshots, showing the protected animal in the custody of the accused persons. The monkey, however, was not recovered from there. The department this time opted for a complaint before the judicial magistrate.
{{/usCountry}}In August that year, the officials again visited the place as they received electronic material, including videos and screenshots, showing the protected animal in the custody of the accused persons. The monkey, however, was not recovered from there. The department this time opted for a complaint before the judicial magistrate.
{{/usCountry}}The accused were arrested also but the court did not give police remand sought for tracing the source and chain of its alleged procurement. The accused had challenged the proceedings under this complaint in HC in July 2026 arguing that no monkey or other protected animal was recovered from his possession during either of the inspections. On the other hand, the department had argued that the allegations are supported by information received from PETA India, social media material, videos, screenshots, inspection reports and statements recorded during the proceedings.
The court observed that at the stage of considering a prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings, the court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or to determine whether the allegations would ultimately result in conviction. “The court is primarily required to examine whether the allegations in the complaint, when read along with the material placed on record, disclose the commission of an offence and whether the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or are otherwise an abuse of the process of law,” it said adding that in the case in hand the complaint is not based merely on a bald allegation.
The NGO received social media posts, videos and screenshots about the presence of the monkey. “The absence of recovery is a circumstance which may be considered by the learned trial court along with the other evidence,” it said, adding the prosecution relies upon electronic material and other circumstances to establish the alleged possession of the animal and the same would be examined during the course of proceedings by the trial court.
The court dismissed the petition observing that no ground for quashing the complaint or the consequential proceedings is made out.