Allahabad High Court Halts FIR Against Police in Sambhal Protest Firing Incident
The Allahabad High Court has issued a significant stay order, putting on hold a directive from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Sambhal that required the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against multiple police personnel. This legal development centers on allegations of indiscriminate firing by police during a demonstration in November 2024, which reportedly resulted in gunshot injuries to a youth.
Background of the Sambhal Protest and Legal Proceedings
The incident in question occurred during a demonstration against the survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. Police action during this protest led to claims of excessive force, with a youth named Alam allegedly being shot by officers outside the Sambhal Jama Masjid. In response to these allegations, a complaint was filed by Yameen, Alam's father, seeking legal action against the police.
On January 9, Chief Judicial Magistrate Vibhanshu Sudheer ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering the lodging of an FIR against several policemen, including the then Circle Officer Anuj Kumar Chaudhary. This order was based on the allegations that the police had engaged in indiscriminate firing on the crowd.
High Court's Intervention and Legal Reasoning
The Uttar Pradesh government and Circle Officer Anuj Kumar Chaudhary separately challenged the CJM's decision by filing petitions in the Allahabad High Court. These petitions were subsequently clubbed together for a joint hearing. Following a detailed examination of the case, Justice Samit Gopal of the Allahabad High Court delivered a ruling on Tuesday that stayed the CJM's order.
In his observation, Justice Gopal noted a critical procedural lapse. The complainant had failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that he had first approached the police station regarding the alleged offence before moving the court. The judge emphasized, "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 or information was provided to the officer in charge of police station regarding commission of cognizable offence and the officer in charge refused and neglected to register the FIR."
The High Court also dismissed objections raised against the maintainability of the petitions filed by the UP government and Chaudhary. The bench clarified that the petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which pertains to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. "A petition before this court is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the supervisory jurisdiction and this court should not scuttle its jurisdiction while entertaining a matter. The law for maintainability of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well settled," the court stated.
Court's Directions and Future Proceedings
While granting the stay on the CJM's order, the Allahabad High Court has provided specific timelines for further legal submissions. The complainant has been granted a period of two weeks to file a counter-affidavit in response to the petitions. Following this, the petitioners will have an additional two weeks to submit their rejoinder.
The case has been scheduled for its next hearing on March 24, where further arguments and evidence will be considered. This legal battle continues to unfold as both sides prepare their respective cases.
Notable Transfer of Judicial Officers
In a related development, approximately two weeks after issuing the initial order directing the FIR, CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer was transferred by the Allahabad High Court. This transfer was part of a larger reshuffle that involved 14 other judges. While the reasons for these transfers have not been officially linked to the Sambhal case, the timing has drawn attention within legal circles.
The stay order by the Allahabad High Court represents a significant legal development in this contentious case, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance in criminal complaints and the supervisory role of higher judiciary in such matters.
