Allahabad High Court Stays Order for FIR Against Sambhal Police Officers Over Alleged Firing Incident
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday stayed an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sambhal, which had directed the registration of an FIR against several police officials, including the then Sambhal Circle Officer Anuj Kumar Chaudhary, in connection with an alleged incident of indiscriminate firing on a crowd that resulted in gunshot injuries to a youth.
The stay was granted by Justice Samit Gopal while hearing two petitions—one filed by Anuj Kumar Chaudhary and another by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Both petitions had earlier been clubbed together by an order of the High Court. Following the stay, the court listed the matter for further hearing on February 24, 2026.
Background of the Case
The proceedings stem from a complaint lodged by Yameen, who had moved an application before the then CJM, Sambhal, Vibhanshu Sudheer.
Acting on the application, the CJM, through an order dated January 9, 2026, allowed the request under Section 173(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), directing registration of an FIR.
In his complaint, Yameen alleged that on November 24, 2024, at around 8.45 am, his son Alam was selling ‘pape’ (rusks) and biscuits from a handcart near Jama Masjid in Mohalla Kot, Sambhal.
He claimed that during this time, police personnel opened fire on the crowd with the intention to kill, causing gunshot injuries. The complaint specifically named the then Sambhal Kotwali in-charge, Anuj Kumar Tomar and the then Circle Officer Anuj Kumar Chaudhary.
CJM’s Observations
In his detailed 11-page order, CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer observed that criminal acts committed by police personnel cannot be protected under the shield of “official duty.”
Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court, the CJM noted that firing upon a person cannot be treated as part of lawful official functions.
Holding that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out, the CJM concluded that a full-fledged investigation was necessary to ascertain the truth.
State’s Objections Before the High Court
Challenging the CJM’s order, Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government and the police officer, argued that the impugned order was legally unsustainable.
He contended that the CJM had failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements laid down under the BNSS.
The AAG submitted that while the CJM exercised powers under Section 175 of the BNSS to direct registration of an FIR, he did not adhere to the strict safeguards built into the provision, which are meant to protect public servants performing official duties from unwarranted prosecution.
During the hearing, the AAG specifically referred to Section 175(4) of the BNSS, which protects public servants against frivolous and vexatious criminal proceedings for acts done in the course of official functions.
He explained that the provision prescribes a two-step mandatory process before ordering an investigation against a public servant.
First, under clause (a), the court must obtain a report from a superior officer. Second, under clause (b), the court must consider the version and assertions of the public servant regarding the circumstances that led to the incident.
Taking note of these submissions, the High Court stayed the operation of the CJM’s order and fixed the matter for further consideration later this month.
#AllahabadHighCourt #Sambhal #PoliceFiringCase #JudicialReview #BNSS #RuleOfLaw #UttarPradesh #HighCourtStay
