Animals may be mute but we have to speak on their behalf: Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects compromise

Animals may be mute but “we as a society” have to speak on their behalf and ensure that no pain or agony is caused to them, observed the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently [Sohan Singh v State of Punjab and others]..The Court made the observation while refusing to accept a compromise to quash a case of rash driving in which one buffalo died and another was injured.Justice Harsh Bunger rejected the petition seeking quashing of the FIR in which 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 Indian Penal Code (IPC) were invoked against the accused.“Cruelty to animals also cause psychological pain to them. Animals breath 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,” the Court said while dismissing the plea. .The accused had sought quashing of a case dating back to 2016 on the basis of a compromise dated December 16, 2022. He was the driver of the bus that hit the animals that were being taken by the complainant to fields in Sangrur district. .The Court opined that it cannot exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing the FIR only on the basis of the compromise.However, it also clarified that no adjudication was being made on the merits of the controversy and that its observations were only for the limited purposes of considering the prayer for quashing the case on the basis of the compromise.“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,” it added..Advocate JS Bhinder represented the accused.Additional Advocate General Sanjeev Soni represented the State.Advocate Sukhmeet Singh represented the complainants..[Read Judgment]