Haryana: Dog feeding dispute turned into stalking case, Gurugram court acquits man after seven years – Read how a self-styled dog lover ruined the life of a man

On 28th January, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Hari Kishan acquitted Vivek Grover, a resident of Gurugram, of charges of sexual harassment and stalking. Grover faced these charges for seven years before being acquitted by the court. His mistake? He called out a self-styled dog lover woman who was feeding stray dogs in his society despite being stopped repeatedly by residents.

The neighbourhood dispute between the dog lover and residents over stray dogs was converted into a case of alleged sexual harassment and stalking. The high-headedness of the dog lover forced an innocent man to endure criminal trial proceedings for over seven years, before the court finally acquitted him of all charges. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish even the basic ingredients of the offences alleged.

In the judgment, the court observed that the allegations were riddled with contradictions, unsupported by evidence, and driven by prior neighbourhood hostility linked to the issue of stray dog feeding. The court concluded that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the criminal law had been set in motion on a foundation that could not withstand judicial scrutiny.

I examined the judgment and here is what it says.

How a civic dispute escalated into a criminal case

The case stemmed from a complaint that was filed on 21st November 2018 by the woman who was a resident of the locality where Grover lived. She described herself as a dog lover and regularly fed stray dogs in the locality. She accused Grover of stalking her, making obscene remarks, threatening her with death, and recording her video without consent.

Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 294 (obscene acts), 354D (stalking), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman). Grover was arrested and later released on bail. Though the offences included non-bailable provisions, the court granted bail at an early stage, noting inconsistencies even at the threshold.

The case continued in the trial court for seven years, involving 36 court dates. During that time, Grover and his family remained under the shadow of serious criminal allegations.

The video that became the centre of the case

The prosecution’s case was based on a video recording made by Grover, which the complainant claimed was a deliberate act of harassment and stalking. However, during the trial, the same video turned out to be the prosecution’s undoing. The court noted that the video did not primarily focus on the complainant. Instead, it predominantly showed the presence and movement of multiple stray dogs in the area. The complainant appeared only incidentally in the frame.

The court also observed that there was no material to indicate that Grover recorded the video with any intention to harass, stalk, or outrage the modesty of the complainant. On the contrary, the evidence supported the defence argument that the recording was made to document the stray dog menace in the locality for the purpose of lodging a complaint with civic authorities.

Investigating officer’s testimony weakens the prosecution

What made the case clearer in favour of Grover was the testimony of the investigating officer herself. During cross-examination, she admitted that she had viewed the video and, in her assessment, it did not appear to have been recorded with any mala fide or malicious intention. She further conceded that no independent witnesses from the neighbourhood had been examined, despite the complainant’s claim that several residents had intervened at the scene.

The investigating officer also acknowledged that Grover had earlier made complaints to the municipal authorities regarding the stray dog problem, and that the complainant regularly fed stray dogs in the area. These admissions significantly weakened the prosecution’s narrative and lent credibility to the defence argument that the criminal case was a retaliatory action arising out of a civic dispute.

Contradictions that the court could not ignore

In the judgment, the court placed considerable emphasis on the contradictions and improvements in the complainant’s testimony. In her original complaint, there was no mention of any death threat. However, during her deposition before the court, she claimed that Grover had threatened to kill her. The court held this to be a material improvement that went to the root of the prosecution case.

Similarly, while the complaint made general references to inappropriate behaviour, specific allegations of obscene remarks on the date of the incident were introduced only during oral testimony.

The most damaging contradiction emerged around the video itself. Both the complainant and her mother initially denied the presence of stray dogs in the video. When the video was played in court and multiple dogs were clearly visible, they shifted their stance, claiming that the footage was edited and incomplete.

The court rejected this attempt outright, noting that the prosecution could not be allowed to disown or cast doubt on the authenticity of evidence it had itself relied upon.

Failure to establish ingredients of the offences

After analysing the evidence, the court held that none of the essential ingredients of the charges were made out. The prosecution failed to show repeated following or contact with the intent to foster personal interaction. A single video recording, without proof of intent, did not meet the statutory threshold.

Furthermore, there was no reliable evidence of obscene words, gestures, or acts intended to insult the modesty of the complainant in a public place. The prosecution failed to prove the charge of criminal intimidation as well. The court reiterated the settled principle that criminal law cannot rest on suspicion, conjecture, or afterthoughts, especially when objective evidence contradicts the allegations.

Seven years of trial and its human cost

Though Grover did not spend time in custody, the court proceedings took a heavy toll on him and his family. Over seven years, the case saw 36 dates of hearing. His business suffered, his family life was disrupted, and the stigma of serious criminal charges loomed over his head while the complainant enjoyed her life freely.

According to submissions made before the court, the prolonged legal battle contributed to severe physical and mental stress, with Grover developing serious health issues during the pendency of the case. While the court ultimately acquitted him, the judgment also stands as a reminder that acquittal after years of trial does not undo the damage inflicted by a prolonged and baseless prosecution.

A larger pattern of misuse masked as activism

This is not about this case alone. This judgment has raised serious and uncomfortable questions about a growing pattern in urban India where organised dog lover groups are weaponising criminal law to silence residents who raise legitimate concerns about the stray dog menace and public safety.

Feeding stray dogs is often portrayed as an act beyond scrutiny, while those who document attacks, lodge complaints with municipal bodies, or demand accountability are branded as aggressors. When civic disputes escalate into false allegations of sexual harassment or stalking, the criminal justice system itself becomes a tool of intimidation.

This case is a clear demonstration of how serious penal provisions meant to protect women from genuine harm are being misused by dog lover gangs to settle scores and shield irresponsible conduct. The Supreme Court took cognisance of the stray dog menace in August 2025 and has reserved judgment in the matter. However, during the hearing, no one raised the issue of false complaints being filed by dog lovers against those who genuinely care about the safety of children, the elderly, and the marginalised.

Such cases have embedded fear among residents, and these dog lover gangs work hand in hand. The likes of a “former Member of Parliament”, who was criticised by the apex court as well, has often encouraged such behaviour by dog lovers and threatened the general public who raise their voice against the stray dog menace.

The responsibility of courts and Parliament

While courts have a duty to weed out false cases through judicial scrutiny, the burden cannot rest on the accused alone to survive years of litigation before truth prevails.

There is an urgent need for Parliament and policymakers to acknowledge the misuse of criminal provisions in stray dog related disputes and to draw clear legal boundaries that protect both genuine victims and the rights of ordinary citizens.

Stray dog menace is not an abstract issue. It affects children, the elderly, and working residents on a daily basis. Those who create public nuisance under the guise of compassion, and then misuse the law to suppress opposition, must be held accountable.

This judgment should be seen as a reminder that criminal law exists to deliver justice, not to serve as a shield for wrongdoing. Unfortunately, despite filing a false case, the complainant did not face any legal action, which may encourage her and other self-styled dog lovers to file false cases and take the law into their own hands.

Read the judgment here.

Disclaimer: This news report is based on information published by mainstream media outlets. For full context and additional details, readers are advised to refer to the original news reports linked above.

About this project: This website is independently maintained. Its purpose, operation, and disclosures are explained here.