Court rejects Sub‑Inspector’s plea after viral incident where cop brutally beats dog; order of FIR stands, underscoring zero tolerance for animal cruelty and police misconduct.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On July 25, 2025, the court rejected a plea by police officers against an earlier order to register an FIR (First Information Report) for brutally beating a dog.
The incident reportedly involved uniformed personnel in Firozabad district who were caught on video assaulting a stray dog in a public area. The footage led to public outrage, prompting a magistrate to direct the registration of an FIR under relevant provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Section 429 of the IPC (mischief by killing or maiming an animal).
The accused officers challenged this direction, claiming misuse of the legal process and demanding that the FIR be cancelled. However, the court upheld the original order, stressing that no individual is above the law, not even those who are expected to uphold it.
Principal District and Sessions Judge (PDSJ) Sukhvinder Kaur, while rejecting the plea of the accused police officers, made strong observations about the seriousness of the allegations. It noted that the act of beating a defenseless animal, especially by those entrusted with maintaining law and order, raises grave concerns of abuse of power and moral disregard.
The court emphasized that the video footage prima facie indicated cruelty, and such visual evidence cannot be dismissed without due investigation. It stated that the process of registering an FIR is a procedural step meant to initiate a lawful inquiry, and interfering at this stage would amount to premature judicial intervention, potentially obstructing justice.
The judge further observed that the allegations are not trivial and must be examined thoroughly, especially when they involve custodians of public trust. Reiterating the principle that no one is above the law, the court held that uniformed authority does not grant immunity from legal accountability, particularly in matters of cruelty towards animals.
ALSO READ: Notable Judgments by Justice Yashwant Varma: Delhi High Court
While dismissing the revision, the court observed,
“The complainants cannot be expected to collect and adduce their evidence about the authenticity of the viral video based on which this complaint has been filed or recover the weapons of offence which are crucial for establishing the guilt of the accused.”
“Hence, I agree with the view taken by the trial court that proper investigation is required to be done for establishing the authenticity of video, recording statements of residents of locality, eye witnesses and doctors who treated the dog while ensuring the protection of witnesses, and for recovery of weapon of offence,”
PDSJ Sukhvinder Kaur said in the order of July 18.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Ex- VP Jagdeep Dhankhar
