Allahabad High Court Continues Hearing on Sambhal Violence Petitions
The Allahabad High Court is scheduled to proceed with the hearing of two interconnected petitions on Tuesday. These legal challenges contest the January 9 order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Sambhal, which mandated the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against several police officers, including Anuj Chaudhary, the former circle officer of the district.
Petitions Filed by State Government and Officer
The petitions have been formally submitted by the Uttar Pradesh government and Anuj Chaudhary himself. They are contesting the CJM's judicial decision related to the 2024 Sambhal violence incident. The original application was filed by an individual named Yameen, who approached CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer seeking the registration of an FIR against police personnel, including Chaudhary. The allegation centers on claims of discriminatory firing during the November 2024 Sambhal violence, which resulted in gunshot injuries to Yameen's son.
Legal Arguments Presented in Court
During Monday's proceedings, Uttar Pradesh's Additional Advocate General, Manish Goyal, presented arguments before the single-judge bench presided over by Justice Samit Gopal. Goyal contended that while passing the order under challenge, the CJM failed to adhere to the mandatory provisions outlined in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS).
Goyal asserted that the CJM's directive for an FIR against the police officer was fundamentally flawed. He argued that it did not follow the essential procedural safeguards established under Section 175 of the BNSS. This specific section is designed to protect public servants who are acting in their official capacity from unwarranted legal actions.
The AAG maintained that this critical oversight renders the CJM's order "legally unsustainable". He specifically referenced Section 175(4) of the BNSS, which aims to shield public servants from frivolous and vexatious criminal proceedings concerning acts performed during their official duties.
Two-Step Process Under BNSS
Goyal elaborated that Section 175 mandates a rigorous two-step process before any investigation can be ordered against a public servant:
- Clause (a) requires receiving a formal report from a superior officer regarding the incident.
- Clause (b) necessitates a thorough consideration of the assertions made by the public servant explaining the circumstances that led to the event in question.
He argued that the CJM's order bypassed these procedural requirements, thereby violating the protective legal framework established for officials.
Details of the Alleged Incident
In his application, Yameen provided a detailed account of the alleged event. He stated that around 8:45 AM on November 24, 2024, his son, Alam, was selling rusks and biscuits from his cart near Jama Masjid in Mohalla Kot, Sambhal. According to the petition, the named police officials, including Anuj Chaudhary and the then Sambhal Kotwali in-charge Anuj Kumar Tomar, suddenly initiated firing at the crowd without provocation.
CJM's Observations and Rationale
In contrast, the CJM's 11-page order presented a different perspective. The magistrate observed that the police cannot automatically invoke the "official duty" shield to justify alleged criminal acts. Referring to established Supreme Court rulings, the CJM noted that firing upon an individual cannot be considered a legitimate discharge of official duties under normal circumstances.
The court found that a prima facie cognizable offence was disclosed based on the allegations. Consequently, the CJM concluded that the complete truth of the matter could only be uncovered through a proper, formal investigation, hence the order for FIR registration.
The Allahabad High Court's upcoming hearing will critically examine these conflicting legal positions, balancing the need for police accountability with the procedural protections afforded to public servants under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
