Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Justice Harsh Bunger dismissed the petition that sought to nullify the FIR, which invoked Sections 279 (pertaining to rash driving or riding on a public way) and 429 (concerning mischief by killing or injuring cattle, or any animal valued at fifty rupees or more) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the accused.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made a profound statement on the rights of animals, emphasizing that
“animals may be mute but we have to speak on their behalf.”
This observation came as the court refused to quash an FIR lodged against an individual accused of causing death and injury to buffaloes through rash and negligent driving. The case, which involved charges under Section 279 (Rash driving or riding on a public way) and 429 (Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), highlighted the legal system’s stance on animal rights and welfare.
Justice Harsh Bunger, presiding over the matter, unequivocally rejected a petition seeking the quashing of the FIR based on a compromise between the parties involved. In his ruling, Justice Bunger articulated a compelling perspective on the intrinsic value of animals, stating,
“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.”
This statement underscores the judiciary’s recognition of animals as sentient beings deserving of respect, care, and legal protection.
Also Read- Madras High Court Set To Rule On Controversial Formula 4 Night Race In Chennai (lawchakra.in)
The court’s decision to not quash the FIR solely on the basis of a compromise reflects a broader legal principle that the rights and welfare of animals transcend private settlements. Justice Bunger further clarified that the court’s observations were made with the sole purpose of evaluating the request for quashing the case and should not influence the trial’s proceedings. He emphasized,
“None of the observations made above shall be construed as any observation or expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by the abovesaid observations.”
This ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse on animal rights in India. It not only reaffirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of all beings but also sets a precedent for future cases involving animal welfare. By acknowledging the emotional and physical well-being of animals and their entitlement to dignity and integrity, the court has laid down a moral and legal framework that could inspire more comprehensive protections for animals across the nation.
The case serves as a reminder of society’s responsibility to advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves, ensuring that justice and compassion extend to all living creatures. As the legal system continues to evolve, this judgment will likely be cited as a pivotal reference in the fight for animal rights, encouraging a more humane and ethical approach to our interactions with the animal kingdom.
CASE DETAILS:
Sohan Singh v State of Punjab and others
Represented the accused- Advocate JS Bhinder
Represented the State- Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Soni
Represented the complainants- Advocate Sukhmeet Singh
