Transportation of progeny of cow within the State : No offence
Allahabad High Court Quashes Frivolous FIR Against Vehicle Owner in Cow Transportation Case. Court Criticizes Misuse of Cow Slaughter Act, Calls for Action Against Frivolous FIRs and Vigilantism
In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against Rahul Yadav, the owner of a vehicle involved in the transportation of cow progeny within the state of Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Abdul Moin and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, delivered the judgment on October 9, 2025, in response to Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9567 of 2025.
The case stemmed from an incident on January 3, 2025, where a Bolero Pickup vehicle, registered under the petitioner Rahul Yadav and driven by his driver, was found transporting nine progeny of cows within the state. An FIR was filed against Yadav under Sections 3, 5(A), and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, as well as Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The court held that the mere transportation of cow progeny within the state does not constitute an offence under Section 5(A) of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The judges observed that there was no evidence of slaughter, maiming, or physical injury to the animals, thus Sections 3 and 8 of the Act were also deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the First Information Report (FIR) filed against Yadav was quashed as no offense was made out under the cited sections.
The court also addressed the issue of vigilantism under the guise of cow protection. It reiterated the Supreme Court's directions in the landmark cases of Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India, urging state authorities to strictly comply with measures to curb such activities.
The Bench criticized the rampant filing of frivolous FIRs under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and directed the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police to submit personal affidavits explaining the reasons behind such actions. The court warned that failure to comply might attract exemplary costs and necessitate personal appearances before the court.
In a firm stance against misuse of the law, the court required these officials to outline actions to be taken against those responsible for filing casual FIRs, thereby wasting the resources of the police and judiciary. The court also called for a government order to prevent the filing of baseless FIRs under the Cow Slaughter Act.
The judgment resonates with the Supreme Court's rulings in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India, urging strict action against vigilantism and mob violence.
Bottom Line:
Mere transportation of progeny of cow within the State does not attract provisions of Section 5(A) of the Act, 1955 - No offence made out under Sections 3, 5(A), and 8 of the Act, 1955 in the absence of slaughter, maiming, or physical injury to the animals - Filing of frivolous FIRs under the Act, 1955 is deprecated.
Statutory provision(s): Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 Sections 3, 5(A), 8; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 Section 11
Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2794490
