'Animals Have Right To Dignity, Bodily Integrity': Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR For Killing Buffaloes By Rash Driving

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash an FIR on the basis of compromise, lodged for killing and injuring buffaloes by rash and negligence driving, observing that animals require self-determination and have "right to bodily integrity, honour and dignity."

Justice Harsh Bunger opined that, "animals may be mute but we as a society have to speak on their behalf and no pain or agony should be caused to the animals. Cruelty to animals also cause psychological pain to them. Animals breathe like humans and have emotions; they require food, water, shelter, normal behavior, medical care, self-determination. The animals have a right to life and bodily integrity, honor and dignity. Animals cannot be treated merely as property."

These observation came in response to the plea filed by a bus driver who was booked under Sections 279, 429 IPC at Punjab's Sangrur, for allegedly hitting two buffaloes by negligence driving, one of them died and another injured.

The accused sought quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC, on the basis of compromise with the complainant, the owner of the buffaloes.

Considering the submissions, the Court noted that, "the allegation against petitioner is that he was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and smashed the bus into the buffaloes/calves going on the side of the road, which resulted into death of one buffalo and injury to another."

While refusing to quash the FIR on the ground of compromise between the parties, the Court said the animals may be mute but we as a society have to speak on their behalf and no pain or agony should be caused to the animals. Cruelty to animals also cause psychological pain to them.

Reliance was place upon High Court's ruling in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, [2019(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 396], wherein it was held,  "All the animals have honour and dignity. Every specy has an inherent right to live and is required to be protected by law. The rights and privacy of animals are to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks..."

In the light of the above, the Court refused quash the FIR, stating that, "this Court is of the considered opinion that it will not be open for this Court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR only on the basis of compromise."

Consequently, the plea was disposed of.

J.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner.

Sanjeev Soni, Additional A.G. Punjab.

Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 40