‘Frivolous’ FIRs on charges of cow slaughter being filed: Allahabad HC

Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court raised concerns over cow vigilantism alongside criticizing police for filing “frivolous FIRs” under the UP Cow Slaughter Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, The Indian Express reported.

The court pointed to the casual manner in which the Act’s provisions are being invoked against people.

The court directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) and the Principal Secretary (Home) to file personal affidavits within three weeks, detailing the action proposed against police personnel responsible for filing “casual” FIRs.

The court sought an explanation on why directions should not be issued to the State government to prevent the registration of such cases in the future.

The bench of Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary and Justice Abdul Moin issued the directions responding to a petition filed by Rahul Yadav, challenging an FIR filed against him on January 3 in Pratapgarh district.

Yadav faced charges for transporting nine calves, slaughter and causing grievous hurt.

However, the court said that transportation of cows within the state was not a crime, adding that the charge of slaughter was false as the nine calves were found alive.

The court, directing no coercive action against the petitioner until further orders, said ‘The matter cannot be treated to be so simple inasmuch, as this court is deluged with such matters on the basis of First Information Reports being filed left and right by authorities and complainants under provisions of the Act’.

Referring to the 2018 Supreme Court guidelines, the court stated: ‘Mob vigilantism and mob violence are to be prevented by governments by taking strict action, by… society who ought to report such incidents to the state machinery, and by police instead of taking law and order into their own hands.’

Referring to what it said ‘frivolous FIRs’, the court further pointed out that ‘aggrieved persons’ approach court for ‘redressal of their grievances’, shelling out their valuable money and time, causing the precious judicial time to be wasted.

The court emphatically said that ‘such cases which could have been nipped in the bud by the State itself’.