Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court is set to continue hearing two connected petitions on Tuesday, challenging the Jan 9 order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Sambhal, which directed the registration of an FIR against several policemen, including Anuj Chaudhary, the then circle officer of the district. The petitions were filed by the Uttar Pradesh govt and Anuj Chaudhary, contesting the CJM’s decision in the 2024 Sambhal violence case. One Yameen had approached CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer, seeking registration of an FIR against police personnel, including Chaudhary, for alleged discriminatory firing during the Nov 2024 Sambhal violence, which left his son with gunshot injuries. On Monday, the additional advocate general (AAG) of Uttar Pradesh Manish Goyal submitted before the single judge bench headded by Justice Samit Gopal that while passing the impugned (under challenged) order, the CJM had not followed the mandatory provisions of the BNSS. Goyal argued that the CJM’s order directing an FIR against the police officer was flawed, as it didn’t follow the procedural safeguards under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), which protects public servants acting in official capacity. He contended that this oversight makes the order “legally unsustainable”.Referring specifically to Section 175(4) BNSS, which seeks to protect public servants from frivolous and vexatious criminal proceedings in respect of acts performed in the course of their official functions, Goyal submitted that it mandates a two-step process before an investigation can be ordered against a public servant. First, the clause (a) provides receiving a report from a superior officer. Secondly, the clause (b) provides consideration of the assertions made by the public servant regarding the situation that led to the incident.In his application, Yameen had alleged that around 8.45 am on Nov 24, 2024, his son Alam was selling rusks and biscuits on his cart near Jama Masjid, Mohalla Kot, Sambhal, when the named police officials suddenly started firing at the crowd. Chaudhary and the then Sambhal Kotwali in-charge Anuj Kumar Tomar were named in the petition. In its 11-page order, the CJM had also observed that the police cannot invoke the “official duty” shield for criminal acts. Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings, the CJM had noted that firing upon a person cannot be considered a discharge of official duties. Finding that a prima facie cognizable offence was disclosed, the CJM court had concluded that the truth could only be unearthed through a proper investigation.
