In a strongly worded order, the Allahabad High Court has come down heavily on the "casual and mindless" registration of FIRs under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that the state machinery appears to be filing such cases "left and right" without applying mind - causing unnecessary harassment and wasting judicial time.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Rahul Yadav, the owner of a Bolero pickup truck, who sought quashing of an FIR registered in Pratapgarh district under Sections 3, 5A, and 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Background
According to the FIR dated January 3, 2025, police claimed they had intercepted a pickup truck carrying nine calves allegedly being transported for slaughter. The driver and other occupants reportedly fled the scene. However, as the court pointed out, the animals were found alive and not injured, and there was no claim that they were being taken outside the state - a key requirement under Section 5A of the Act.
Petitioner Rahul Yadav argued that he was merely the vehicle's owner, not present at the scene, and was being harassed by local authorities. His driver had taken the vehicle without his knowledge on March 1, 2025, and since then, the petitioner had no involvement in the alleged incident.
Court's Observations
The Bench observed that the FIR on its face showed no violation of the Cow Slaughter Act. "Transportation of cow progeny within the State is not a crime," the court reiterated, citing its earlier ruling in Kaliya v. State of U.P. (2023).
The judges further noted:
"Once, prima facie the petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle and was neither the driver nor a person in the said vehicle, it cannot be said that any offence under Section 11 of the Act, 1960 is attracted."
Taking serious note of the trend, the court remarked that it was
"deluged with petitions" arising from such unmindful FIRs. The Bench emphasized that mere preparation for slaughter cannot be treated as an offence - referring to Parasram Ji vs Imtiaz (1962), where the court had ruled that tying an animal without actual killing or attempt was not punishable.
Justice Moin observed,
“It is high time the authorities realize that the provisions of the Cow Slaughter Act are being invoked casually, despite clear judicial pronouncements to the contrary.”
The order also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in State of M.P. v. Narayan Singh (1989), noting that intention and preparation alone do not constitute culpability.
Directions and Broader Concerns
In a significant move, the High Court directed the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh to file personal affidavits explaining:
- Why such "casual FIRs" are being filed across the state.
- What action is being taken against officers or complainants responsible for frivolous cases.
- Why no government order has been issued despite Supreme Court directives against mob vigilantism in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018).
The Bench linked the misuse of the Act to the growing menace of vigilantism, stating:
"Violence, lynching, and vigilantism are the order of the day. The authorities must ensure that cow protection does not become a licence for lawlessness."
It recalled that the Supreme Court had laid down preventive, remedial, and punitive measures in 2018, including appointing district-level nodal officers and ensuring strict action against mob justice. Yet, the court noted, no effective implementation was visible even seven years later.
Court's Decision
Granting interim relief, the Bench directed that no coercive action be taken against Rahul Yadav under the impugned FIR. However, it asked him to cooperate in the investigation.
Concluding on a stern note, the judges ordered that both the Principal Secretary (Home) and DGP must submit their personal affidavits within three weeks, detailing compliance with Supreme Court guidelines and steps taken to prevent such misuse of law. The matter was listed for further hearing on November 7, 2025.
The court warned that if the affidavits were not filed, the officials would have to appear in person before the bench.
As the gavel fell, Justice Moin's observation echoed in the courtroom - a quiet reminder that law and vigilance are not the same thing.
Case Title: Rahul Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow & 3 Others
Case Type & Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9567 of 2025