Allahabad High Court flagged “scripted FIRs” in cow slaughter cases across districts, citing identical complaints. Bench of Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava raised concerns over drafting patterns.
The Allahabad High Court has raised serious concerns over what it termed “scripted FIRs” being registered across different districts in Uttar Pradesh, particularly in cases arising under cow slaughter laws. The observation came while the Court was hearing two criminal writ petitions that involved nearly identical allegations, prompting judicial scrutiny into the manner in which such FIRs are being drafted and filed.
The Bench, comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava, noted that one FIR had been lodged in Hardoi district while the other was registered in Bahraich locations separated by more than 150 kilometers. Despite the geographical distance, the Court found a striking similarity in the language and structure of both complaints.
Highlighting this unusual pattern, the Bench observed,
“it is indeed a strange coincidence that primarily the same script has been used in two different FIRs in different police stations situated at a substantial distance!,”
The court indicated that such resemblance could not be brushed aside as mere coincidence.
The Court further recalled its earlier criticism in one of the matters, where it had remarked that the FIR resembled a “movie script” due to its dramatic and stylised narration. This added to the suspicion that the complaints may not have been independently recorded, thereby raising concerns about procedural fairness and authenticity in criminal investigations.
Another aspect that drew the Court’s attention was the similarity in the alleged police encounters described in both FIRs. In each case, one of the accused was reported to have suffered a gunshot injury during the encounter.
The Bench noted,
“A perusal of the impugned F.I.R. in the case of Aleem (supra) and Akbar Ali (supra) would indicate that in both the FIRs one of the accused has been shot at by the authorities in their leg.”
It further recorded that while in one instance the injury was on the right leg, in the other it was on the left, reinforcing concerns about a possible pattern.
ALSO READ: Only Victims Can File FIRs Under UP Conversion Law, Not Strangers: Supreme Court
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court emphasized that strict procedural safeguards must be followed in cases involving police encounters. However, it found that the affidavits submitted by the respective Superintendents of Police failed to clarify whether these mandatory guidelines had been adhered to.
In light of these deficiencies, the Court directed the Superintendents of Police of both districts to file detailed personal affidavits. These affidavits are required to explain the similarities in the FIRs and confirm compliance with the Supreme Court’s prescribed procedures governing encounter cases. The Bench also issued a caution that failure to comply with its directions could result in the personal appearance of senior police authorities along with relevant records.
The Court further indicated that if it is found that the encounter guidelines were not followed, the matter could invite serious consequences, including contempt proceedings and departmental action. The case has been scheduled for further hearing on May 21, 2026, where the Court is expected to examine the responses submitted by the authorities.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE