The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday extended its interim stay on an order by a Sambhal court that had directed the registration of an FIR against several police personnel in connection with the November 2024 violence in Sambhal.
On January 9, Chief Judicial Magistrate Vibhanshu Sudheer had ordered that a case be registered against Additional Superintendent of Police Anuj Chaudhary, Inspector Anuj Tomar and 15 to 20 unidentified officers over allegations that a man named Alam was shot and injured during the unrest.
The violence had erupted after members of the Muslim community objected to a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Chandausi. The survey had been directed in a suit claiming that the mosque, built in 1526 during the reign of Babur, stood on the site of an older Shri Hari Har Temple dedicated to Lord Kalki. Five people were killed in the clashes, Scroll.in reported.
According to the complaint, Alam had gone out that day to sell rusks when he was allegedly shot near the mosque. His father, Yameen, claimed that police personnel were responsible for the firing.
While passing the order, the magistrate had observed that Alam had indeed suffered gunshot injuries but said that the identity of the shooter required investigation. He also noted that given the seriousness of an attempted murder charge, it was unlikely that the victim would falsely implicate someone while shielding the actual assailant. The magistrate further remarked that police personnel could not claim protection of official duty in cases involving alleged criminal acts.
Weeks later, Sudheer was among 14 judicial officers transferred by the High Court and was posted to Sultanpur as a civil judge (senior division). He was replaced by Aditya Singh, who had earlier ordered the survey of the mosque.
The matter came up before Justice Samit Gopal on Tuesday, who was hearing a petition filed by Chaudhary and Tomar challenging the magistrate’s order. The judge extended the interim relief granted earlier and scheduled the next hearing for April 21.
The High Court had previously stayed the magistrate’s order after hearing the petition. During the proceedings, the state government’s counsel reportedly argued that the magistrate had exceeded the scope of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by overlooking mandatory legal safeguards, including the requirement to allow the accused officers to present their side before passing such directions.