What you should know about delays in filing FIR on animal cruelty cases

Authored by Prasenjit Dutta,
-Retired Civil Engineer,
-Former Secretary and Founder of Pashupati Animal Welfare Society-PAWS at Barasat, Kolkata
-Proprietor of RKD Pet Shop that supplies pet-use products nationwide.

Why the weaknesses in animal protection laws are not getting amended through year after year? Points to ponder.

As per official documentation, there are not enough cases of crimes against animals that might require the State’s attention towards strengthening the laws. Read on to know the reason behind this statement.

It happens in every case of police complaint made against animal cruelty that the Police refuse to file an immediate FIR and asks the complainant to wait until Police finishes preliminary investigations to see if the described incident actually happened or not. Days are lost, sometimes weeks and evidences disappear, witnesses have second thoughts and get influenced by the perpetrators of the offense or their supporters.  As a result it becomes a lost case and doesn’t even enter the official statistical data of incidents of cruelty against animals. Needless to mention that if each such a case doesn’t hit the official records through a completion of detailed investigation after FIR, the State has no cause of action to amend the weaknesses in laws. The logic would be–there are not many cases, so why we have to amend the existing laws or acts?

Now there is a way that you can insist upon the Police to file an instant FIR. Once the FIR is filed, Police are duty bound to prepare a detailed investigation report after starting an enquiry based on FIR. It is during the enquiry phase that the complainant has to make sure that the Police do not miss any evidence or witness.

See this recent observation of Hon. SC that the “Police Not Required To Go into Genuineness of Information to Register FIR : Supreme Court”

This observation is included in the following case:

Case of Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. (2025) (2025 INSC 1095).

Parties: Vinod Kumar Pandey & Another vs Seesh Ram Saini & Others

Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Date: About 11 September 2025

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that if a prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed, police must register the FIR; they cannot refuse to do so just because the genuineness or credibility of the information is in question.

It clarified that preliminary inquiry reports (or preliminary investigations done by CBI etc.) cannot substitute the police’s duty to register the FIR when allegations disclose cognizable offences.

It also reiterated that Constitutional Courts (High Courts or the Supreme Court under Article 226 / Section 482 CrPC etc.) have power to evaluate whether cognizable offences are disclosed, irrespective of alternate remedies or delays.

The actual Order referred above is available to view at the link below. The actual paragraph where that statement appears is Paragraph 32 in pages 14–15 that states “the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information.”

In other words, the Court explains that once information prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, the police’s duty under Section 154 CrPC is to register the FIR — they need not, at that stage, probe the truthfulness or credibility of the complaint. The judgment refers to Ramesh Kumari and reiterates that genuineness/credibility is not a condition precedent to FIR registration.

The link to the order copy:
https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2025-09-10/l32ztz15/Vinod_Kumar_Pandey___Anr__vs__Seesh_Ram_Saini___Ors_.pdf