The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday stayed the registration of a First Information Report against former Sambhal circle officer Anuj Kumar Chaudhary and other police officials in connection with alleged police firing during violence in Sambhal in November 2024.
Justice Samit Gopal passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Chaudhary, who is currently posted as Assistant Superintendent of Police in Firozabad, along with former Sambhal Kotwali in charge Anuj Kumar Tomar. The High Court said the stay would remain in force for now and posted the matter for further hearing later this month.
The case relates to an order passed on January nine by then Sambhal Chief Judicial Magistrate Vibhanshu Sudheer, who had directed the registration of an FIR after accepting a complaint filed by a local Muslim resident, Muhammad Yameen. The magistrate had concluded that a prima facie cognisable offence was made out and that the matter required a criminal investigation.
In his eleven page order, the CJM had observed that the police cannot claim protection of official duty when allegations involve criminal acts. Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the magistrate had said that firing at civilians cannot be treated as part of lawful official duty. He added that the truth could only come out through proper investigation.
The High Court, however, noted that the complainant had not produced any document to show that he first approached the police station for registration of an FIR and that the police refused to act.
“The fact which is seen is that the complainant has failed to produce any relevant document or even make a relevant pleading that he approached the officer in charge of the police station regarding the commission of a cognisable offence and the officer refused or neglected to register the FIR,” Justice Samit Gopal observed.
The court rejected objections raised against the maintainability of the petitions filed by the Uttar Pradesh government and the police officers. It said that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable and that the High Court could exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
“A petition before this court is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this court should not scuttle its jurisdiction while entertaining such a matter,” the court said.
At the same time, the High Court granted the complainant two weeks to file a counter affidavit and allowed another two weeks for the petitioners to submit their rejoinder. The court clarified that the stay on the CJM’s order would continue till the next date of hearing.
“Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated January nine passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal, shall remain stayed,” the court ordered.
The complainant, Muhammad Yameen, has alleged that on November twenty four, two thousand twenty four, his twenty four year old son Mohammad Alam was selling rusks and biscuits from a cart near Jama Masjid in Sambhal when police allegedly opened fire during violence linked to protests against a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. According to the complaint, Alam was hit by bullets in his back and hand and later underwent multiple surgeries.
Yameen has alleged that Anuj Chaudhary, Anuj Tomar and several other policemen deliberately fired with the intent to kill. The police, however, have charged Mohammad Alam with involvement in the violence, a charge his father has contested.
During the High Court hearing, government lawyers argued that the magistrate had exceeded his powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and that the police officers were not given an opportunity to present their side before the order was passed.
Senior advocate SFA Naqvi, appearing for the complainant, opposed the petitions and questioned the state government’s role in defending its officers. “A person has been shot. The state is supposed to protect the citizen, not rush to protect its own officers. If this continues, justice will derail,” he argued.
