Allahabad High Court to Continue Hearing on Petitions Challenging FIR Order Against Sambhal Police Officers
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court will continue hearing on Tuesday two connected petitions—one filed by the Uttar Pradesh government and the other by Anuj Chaudhary, the then Circle Officer (CO) of Sambhal—challenging the January 9, 2026 order of the then Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), which directed the registration of an FIR against several police personnel, including Anuj Chaudhary.
The petitions arise from an application filed by one Yameen before the CJM, Sambhal, seeking the registration of an FIR against police officials for allegedly indulging in discriminatory firing during the Sambhal violence of November 2024.
In the incident, Yameen’s son sustained gunshot injuries.
The matter is being heard by Justice Samit Gopal.
State’s Submissions Before the Court
During Monday’s hearing, Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Uttar Pradesh Manish Goyal submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Initiating arguments on behalf of the state government and the police officer, the AAG contended that the CJM’s order was legally unsustainable.
He argued that although the CJM had exercised powers under Section 175 of the BNSS to direct the registration of an FIR, he did not adhere to the strict procedural safeguards prescribed under the provision, which are specifically intended to protect public servants while discharging official duties.
Referring to Section 175(4) of the BNSS, which protects public servants against frivolous and vexatious criminal proceedings for acts performed in the course of official functions, the AAG submitted that the law mandates a two-step process before ordering an investigation against a public servant.
First, under clause (a), a report must be obtained from a superior officer. Second, under clause (b), the magistrate must consider the explanation or assertions made by the public servant regarding the circumstances that led to the incident.
According to the state, neither of these mandatory steps was followed.
Allegations Made by the Complainant
It may be recalled that Yameen had moved an application before the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal, Vibhanshu Sudheer.
In his application, Yameen alleged that on November 24, 2024, at around 8:45 am, his son Alam was selling pape (rusks) and biscuits from a thela near Jama Masjid in Mohalla Kot, Sambhal.
He claimed that at that time, the named police officials suddenly opened fire at the crowd with an intention to kill.
The application specifically named then Sambhal Circle Officer Anuj Chaudhary and the then Sambhal Kotwali in-charge Anuj Kumar Tomar.
CJM’s Observations in the Impugned Order
In his eleven-page order, CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer observed that the police cannot claim the protection of “official duty” for acts that amount to criminal offences.
Relying on rulings of the Supreme Court of India, the CJM noted that firing upon a person cannot be treated as an act performed in the discharge of official duties.
Holding that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out, the CJM concluded that the truth of the allegations could only be ascertained through a proper and independent investigation, and accordingly directed the registration of an FIR.
The High Court will continue to hear the matter on Tuesday.
#AllahabadHighCourt #SambhalViolence #PoliceFiringCase #BNSS #FIRChallenge #JusticeSamitGopal #UttarPradesh #RuleOfLaw
