Sambhal violence: UP govt challenges CJM order for FIR against cops, says he ‘ignored BNSS procedure’

The CJM, who was transferred in January—his 3rd transfer in less than a year—had directed an FIR against policemen after one of them allegedly fired at stall-owner during Sambhal violence.

Police outpost outside Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal | Manisha Mondal | ThePrint

New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government has told the Allahabad High Court that Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Vibhanshu Sudheer—who had ordered an FIR against police officers for alleged firing during the November 2024 Sambhal violence—acted in violation of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provisions.

The case pertains to that of a Muslim youth who was allegedly shot at by Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) Anuj Chaudhary (then the circle officer) at the time. The violence had erupted near the Shahi Jama Masjid on 24 November 2024 during an ASI-monitored survey of the mosque. Four people died and several others were injured.

The CJM, who was transferred to Sultanpur in January—his third transfer in less than a year—had earlier that month directed the registration of an FIR against police officers after one of them allegedly fired a gun shot at a stall-owner during the Sambhal violence.

Additional Advocate General (AAG) Manish Goyal, who represented the UP government, told ThePrint, “Arguments are still in continuation. The UP government challenged the magistrate’s order on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been ignored completely.”

Emphasising that the facts of the case were not looked into properly, the AAG further said “a one-sided approach” had been adopted in this case, as the police officers had to be examined under the BNSS, but this was yet to be done.

At Monday’s hearing, the AAG told the court that although the Sambhal judge had acted under Section 175 of the BNSS which allows a magistrate to order an investigation upon receiving a complaint against a public servant who acted in the course of official duties, there were safeguards under Section 175(4) that protect public servants from frivolous proceedings that he failed to take into account.

For instance, Section 175(4)(a) and (b) say that if a magistrate is ordering an investigation against a public servant, the same shall be subject to receiving a report about the facts and circumstances of the incident from a superior officer. Similarly, another safeguard mentioned in this provision is that such an investigation can only be conducted after considering the assertions made by the public servant about the situation that led to the alleged incident.

The AAG also argued for the Uttar Pradesh government that the trial court had ignored the police’s report in this case, which had stated that the matter was under investigation, while stating that the CJM had gone beyond the scope of the statute. The UP government also said that the complainant had straightaway gone to the court, which had acted based on his complaint, without looking at the question of whether he even approached a police station first.

The Allahabad High Court was hearing the UP government’s challenge to then Sambhal CJM Sudheer’s 9 January order directing an FIR against Anuj Chaudhary and other policemen in connection with the 2024 violence.

The 9 January order

Then Sambhal CJM Sudheer’s January order was on a plea by one Yameen, whose son was selling rusks and biscuits at the time of the alleged firing. Yameen in his plea contended that his son Alam was grievously hurt in the process while he was trying to flee the spot.

The plea also alleged that the firing was carried out with an intention to kill, causing the court to remark that an attempt to murder is a serious offence, and order an investigation.

In doing so, the court had also said that no out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards were to be bestowed on the concerned police officers.

All eyes are now on the Allahabad HC which is slated to continue hearing the matter today.

(Edited by Gitanjali Das)