Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday stayed a trial court order directing the filing of a first information report (FIR) against Additional Superintendent of Police Anuj Chaudhary in connection with allegations that a man was shot and injured during unrest in Sambhal in November 2024, Live Law reported.
Justice Samit Gopal, hearing a petition filed by Chaudhary — who was the circle officer of Sambhal at the time of the violence — listed the matter for further hearing on February 24.
The unrest broke out on November 24, 2024, after a group of Muslims objected to a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Chandausi town. The survey had been directed by a trial court in a suit claiming that the mosque, built in 1526 by Mughal ruler Babar, stood on the site of the “centuries-old Shri Hari Har Temple dedicated to Lord Kalki.” Five people were killed during the violence.
The FIR order was sought by Yameen, father of one of the alleged victims, Alam, who he claimed had gone out to sell rusks and was shot by police near the mosque. The petition, filed in February 2025, named Chaudhary, Inspector Anuj Tomar, and several other police personnel.
On January 9, the Sambhal court ordered the FIR against the police officers. Chief Judicial Magistrate Vibhanshu Sudheer had ruled that police cannot invoke “official duty” as a shield for criminal acts, citing Supreme Court precedents that firing upon a person cannot be considered an official duty. The Sambhal police had earlier indicated they would challenge the order.
Sudheer was among 14 judicial officers transferred on January 20, days after directing the FIR, and was posted as a civil judge (senior division) in Sultanpur. Aditya Singh, civil judge (senior division) of Chandausi town, replaced him. Singh was also the judge who had ordered the survey of the mosque.
On Tuesday, the High Court noted that the complainant had been granted 14 days to file a counter-affidavit against the police appeal. Justice Gopal said the stay would remain in effect until then but left the question of maintainability to be considered after the filing of the counter.
During proceedings, the government’s counsel argued that the chief judicial magistrate had exceeded his authority under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and ignored mandatory procedural safeguards. He also said the police officers were not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
The complainant’s counsel, however, questioned the maintainability of the petition, alleging that the state government was protecting its officers under the principal secretary (home). The counsel referred to the doctrine of parens patriae, which empowers the state to act as a guardian for those unable to care for themselves.
“The protector of the citizen,” the counsel said, “A person has been shot; the state’s role is to protect its citizens. At this stage, the state is jumping to protect its own officers, which cannot be allowed, otherwise justice will derail.”