Back
Stays FIR Against Police in Sambhal Violence Case Over Procedural Grounds
Introduction
In a significant intervention highlighting the importance of procedural adherence in criminal complaints, the has stayed an order directing the registration of a against police officers accused of firing during the violence in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. Justice Samit Gopal, exercising the court's under , halted the Chief Judicial Magistrate's (CJM) directive pending further hearings, citing the complainant's failure to demonstrate prior attempts to lodge the FIR at the local police station. This ruling comes amid allegations of excessive police force during protests against a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, where a young vendor, Mohammad Alam, was reportedly shot. The petitioners include former Sambhal Circle Officer Anuj Kumar Chaudhary and Inspector Anuj Kumar Tomar, with the also challenging the CJM's order. The decision underscores tensions between public servant protections and demands for accountability in cases of alleged police misconduct, potentially influencing how similar complaints are processed in riot-torn scenarios.
Case Background
The case originates from the violent clashes in Sambhal on , triggered by protests against a court-ordered survey of the historic Shahi Jama Masjid, which some groups claim has Hindu temple origins. The unrest led to stone-pelting, arson, and police deployment to control the crowds, resulting in several injuries and deaths. Amid the chaos, Muhammad Yameen, a local resident, filed a complaint alleging that his 24-year-old son, Mohammad Alam, was selling rusks and biscuits from a cart near the Jama Masjid when police opened fire. According to Yameen, Alam was struck by bullets in his back and hand, requiring multiple surgeries. He accused Chaudhary, Tomar, and other unnamed officers of deliberately firing with intent to kill, invoking potential charges under sections related to and .
The police narrative, however, paints a different picture. Officials claimed Alam was involved in the violence, and the firing was lawful crowd control under official duty. Multiple FIRs were already registered at against rioters, including Alam, based on reports from the . Yameen, dissatisfied with the police response, approached higher authorities and eventually filed a miscellaneous application under , the new criminal procedure code replacing the .
On , Chief Judicial Magistrate Vibhanshu Sudheer at Chandausi, Sambhal, allowed Yameen's application in Misc. Case No. 525 of 2025. In an 11-page order, the CJM concluded a was made out, directing the Station House Officer (SHO), Sambhal, to register an FIR and investigate. The magistrate emphasized that police cannot claim blanket protection for actions involving criminal intent, citing precedents that firing at civilians does not qualify as lawful duty without justification. This order sparked immediate challenges.
Chaudhary (now ASP in Firozabad) and Tomar filed a petition under Article 227 (Matters Under Article 227 No. 1268 of 2026), seeking to quash the CJM's directive. Separately, the , through its Principal Secretary (Home), petitioned in Matters Under Article 227 No. 1463 of 2026, arguing the magistrate overstepped powers. The cases were linked, with hearings commencing in early February 2026. The core legal questions revolve around:
(1) compliance with BNSS procedures for FIR registration in complaints against public servants;
(2) the maintainability of supervisory petitions under Article 227 against ; and
(3) the threshold for directing investigations into alleged police excesses during riots.
Arguments Presented
The petitioners, represented by counsels including and , mounted a robust defense centered on procedural irregularities and protections for public servants. They argued that Yameen bypassed mandatory steps under the BNSS by not first approaching the local police station to report the cognizable offense. allows complaints via electronic means, but Section 174(3) (analogous to old 156(3)) requires exhaustion of police remedies before magisterial intervention. The state highlighted existing FIRs from the incident, referenced in a , report by the Additional SP, North, Sambhal, which detailed police actions and implicated Alam in the violence. They contended the CJM ignored a detailed police report submitted to the court, violating by not hearing the officers.
Further, invoking , which shields public servants from frivolous probes, the petitioners asserted the complaint was harassment aimed at shielding rioters. They relied on rulings like Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 238), which stresses pre-investigation safeguards against vexatious litigation, and XXX v. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 88), emphasizing procedural hierarchies. The state also questioned the CJM's jurisdiction, claiming the order exceeded BNSS limits without evidence of police refusal to register an FIR.
On the other side, , assisted by and others, represented Yameen vigorously. They challenged the state's , noting the petition was filed by the Principal Secretary (Home)—described ambiguously as both petitioner and complainant—without clear authorization, potentially acting in a private capacity. Naqvi argued Article 227 petitions are inappropriate for simple FIR directives, citing P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani (2026 INSC 121) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995 (4) SCC 262), which limit supervisory interference to grave injustices. He stressed the state's duty to protect citizens, not officers, warning that shielding police derails justice.
Naqvi countered factual claims, insisting Alam was an innocent vendor, not a rioter, and that police firing was disproportionate. He referenced precedents like Nahni v. State of U.P. (2025 AHC 220921) and Kamlesh Meena v. State of U.P. (2025 AHC 123424), urging investigation to uncover truth. Seeking time to file a counter-affidavit, he emphasized the humanitarian angle: a young man shot multiple times demands accountability, regardless of procedural nitpicks.
Legal Analysis
Justice Samit Gopal's bench navigated a delicate balance between supervisory oversight and deference to lower courts, ultimately prioritizing procedural rigor. The ruling reinforces that under BNSS, complainants must plead and prove exhaustion of police remedies before invoking magisterial powers under Section 173(4). This echoes the 's Section 156(3) framework, designed to prevent and ensure police primacy in cognizable offenses. The court distinguished between routine complaints and those against public servants, where Section 175(4)(b) mandates preliminary scrutiny to avoid undue harassment.
Precedents played a pivotal role. The reliance on Om Prakash Ambadkar underscores that courts must not lightly direct FIRs without verifying police inaction, protecting officers from motivated accusations in high-tension scenarios like riots. Similarly, XXX v. State of Kerala highlights the need for balanced application of procedural codes post-BNSS enactment, ensuring electronic reporting doesn't bypass foundational steps. On maintainability, the court rejected objections, affirming Article 227's broad supervisory scope per settled law, distinguishing it from Article 226's . This aligns with Shyamsunder Trivedi , where the held high courts can intervene in procedural excesses but not micromanage investigations.
The analysis delimits key concepts: quashing an FIR (under /BNSS equivalent) differs from staying a directive for registration, the former requiring , the latter procedural flaws. Here, no full quashing occurred, but the stay halts momentum, allowing rejoinders. Allegations invoke Sections 307 ( ) and 333 (grievous hurt) , but the CJM's order treated firing as non-official, per rulings like those in (implied, though not cited), stressing custodial and crowd-control limits. The decision clarifies that without evidence of police refusal, direct magisterial orders risk undermining the BNSS's layered approach, potentially affecting future riot probes where police immunity is invoked.
Integrating external reports, news sources reveal broader context: Sambhal's violence killed four and injured dozens, with communal undertones fueling FIR cross-filings. Yameen's claim of deliberate firing contrasts police assertions of minimal force, highlighting evidentiary battles in such cases.
Key Observations
The judgment extracts pivotal reasoning through direct quotes, emphasizing procedural gateways and jurisdictional restraint:
-
On the complainant's procedural shortfall: “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 Incharge of the Police Station or information was provided to the Officer Incharge of police station regarding commission of and the Officer Incharge refused and neglected to register the FIR.”
-
Affirming supervisory powers: “A petition before this Court is filed under of India and this court should not scuttle its jurisdiction while entertaining such a matter.”
-
The stay order: “Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed in Misc. Case No. 525 of 2025 (Yameen Vs. Anuj Tomar) by learned shall remain stayed.”
-
From arguments, Naqvi's poignant critique: “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.”
These observations crystallize the court's focus on foundational compliance, preventing premature escalations.
Court's Decision
The , in its order dated , granted an interim stay on the CJM's , directive, suspending FIR registration and investigation until the next hearing on . Justice Gopal allowed Yameen two weeks to file a counter-affidavit, with petitioners getting another two weeks for rejoinders, ensuring adversarial testing.
Practically, this shields the officers from immediate scrutiny, preserving their reputations amid ongoing duties—Chaudhary as ASP Firozabad—and averts potential departmental disruptions. For Yameen and Alam, it delays justice, prolonging recovery without accountability, though the counter-affidavit opportunity keeps the door open.
Broader implications are profound for legal practice. The ruling reinforces BNSS procedural mandates, urging complainants' lawyers to document police approaches meticulously, especially against public servants. It may deter hasty magisterial interventions in riot cases, channeling more disputes to police first, potentially reducing judicial overload but risking delayed probes in sensitive communal violence. Future cases, like those from recent UP clashes, could cite this for stays, balancing officer protections with DK Basu -style guidelines on force. Ultimately, it signals high courts' readiness to supervise under Article 227, promoting orderly justice without stifling genuine grievances, though critics may see it as tilting toward state machinery in polarized contexts.
This decision, amid Sambhal's lingering tensions, invites reflection on reforming police accountability mechanisms, perhaps through specialized riot inquiry panels, to harmonize procedure with equity.
