The Charges
Awarded
When a Grooming Session Ends in Trauma: Legalfoxes Moves Court to Compel an FIR Against Vetic Over a Dog’s Eye Injury
Acting for a Gurugram pet owner, Legalfoxes has filed a criminal complaint and an application under Section 175(3) BNSS before the JMFC, Gurugram, after the local police failed to register an FIR despite contemporaneous medical records documenting a serious, trauma-induced ocular injury sustained by the animal while in the accused’s exclusive custody.
Our client, was the owner of a pet dog named “Cheeku,” who, prior to 24 April 2026, was healthy, active and free of any ocular condition. On that date, relying on the advertisements, branding and assurances of trained professional handling made by Petpai Technologies Private Limited which operates under the brand name Vetic the complainant booked a grooming and bathing session for the animal at its Sector-47, Sohna Road, Gurugram outlet.
Upon arrival, custody and control of the animal was handed over entirely to Vetic’s staff for the grooming procedure; the complainant was not permitted inside the grooming area. While the dog remained in the accused’s exclusive custody, it sustained a severe traumatic ocular injury proptosis of the left eye, with the eyeball displaced from its socket. The complainant became aware of the incident only when a staff member asked, whether the dog had any pre-existing eye condition.
Emergency veterinary intervention followed immediately. The medical record generated the same day recorded approximately 80% protrusion of the eyeball, haemorrhagic sclera, an absent menace response, a diagnosis of proptosis, a poor prognosis, and the need for emergency tarsorrhaphy surgery all while noting that the injury occurred during grooming at the accused’s premises.
The CCTV Trail That Didn’t Add Up
On the day of the incident, Vetic’s representatives told the complainant and police that no CCTV recording existed, claiming the cameras were for live monitoring only. This was inconsistent with earlier representations that recordings were centrally maintained. The next day, the groomer directly involved and other concerned staff were found conspicuously absent from the premises.
It was only after repeated demands and police intervention that the accused, on 27 April 2026, produced selective footage played from a private laptop rather than the original recording device, with visible gaps and discontinuities around the critical period. What footage was shown appeared to depict reckless handling of the animal, including an attempt to manually push the protruded eyeball back into its socket rather than seeking immediate emergency veterinary care.
Police Inaction and the Route to Court
Despite a same-day complaint at Gurugram, a detailed follow-up complaint on 28 April 2026 seeking preservation of the original CCTV/DVR/NVR records, and a representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East), Gurugram on 4 May 2026 , no FIR was registered. A subsequent grievance filed through the Chief Minister’s Window drew an Action Taken Report that described the injury as a “simple” one a characterisation squarely at odds with the medical record and the treating veterinarian’s own statement in the police case diary.
With statutory remedies before the police exhausted, Mr. Atin Handuja, Founder Managing Partner of Legalfoxes, filed a criminal complaint under Section 223 BNSS along with an application under Section 175(3) BNSS, seeking a direction to the SHO, to register an FIR and conduct a fair investigation. The complaint sets out how the facts, on their face, disclose offences under Sections 325 (causing grievous hurt/maiming), 316 (criminal breach of trust in relation to entrusted property), 318 (cheating by false representation of professional standards), 238 (causing disappearance of evidence) and 217 (furnishing false information to a public servant) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in addition to cruelty to animals under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Why This Case Matters
The matter raises a question of growing relevance as India’s pet-care industry expands: what duty does a commercial grooming or veterinary establishment owe to an animal entrusted to its exclusive custody, and what happens when contemporaneous medical evidence is disregarded in favour of a more convenient official narrative? The complaint also underscores a recurring evidentiary problem the selective, delayed or inconsistent production of CCTV footage by service establishments once an adverse incident occurs, and the importance of the Section 175(3) BNSS remedy in compelling police action where a station house officer declines to register a cognizable offence.
The application for registration of an FIR is currently pending consideration before the Ld. JMFC, Gurugram. Legalfoxes will continue to update this case story as the matter progresses.
Firm Legalfoxes Advocates and Consultants
Advocate Mr. Atin Handuja, Founder Managing Partner
Email contact@legalfoxess.com
This case story is shared for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.