4 min readLucknowUpdated: Feb 11, 2026 12:20 AM IST
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday stayed the January 9 order issued by the Sambhal Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) for registering an FIR against police officers in connection with the gunshot injuries sustained by a youth during the November 2024 violence.
The Sambhal court had ordered the registration of an FIR against the then Circle Officer (CO) Anuj Kumar Chaudhary and other police officers, including the then local SHO Anuj Kumar Tomar, for allegedly firing at a 23-year-old biscuit seller, Mohammad Alam, during the violence that broke out over the survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid.
Alam’s father, Yameen, had approached the CJM court seeking lodging of an FIR against the policemen, claiming that his son was innocent.
Following the Sambhal court’s order, two petitions were filed in the High Court, one by then CO Anuj Kumar Chaudhary and SHO Anuj Kumar Tomar, and another by the UP government, challenging the FIR order.
While staying the CJM’s order till March 24, the next date for hearing, the High Court Bench of Justice Samit Gopal granted two weeks’ time to the youth’s father to file a counter affidavit.
In their petitions, the police officers and the state government sought the quashing of the Sambhal court order and imposition of award costs to the youth’s family.
Pleading before the High Court, the Additional Advocate General, representing the state government, argued that Alam and his father did not approach the local police station for lodging of an FIR and instead approached senior police officers and the CJM.
Story continues below this ad
“Therefore, the procedure under Section 174(3) of the BNSS has not been followed,” the government counsel said, adding that the Sambhal court did not consider the police report filed before it, giving a detailed version about the alleged incident.
The counsel for Yameen, however, submitted that the petitioner in the case is Principal Secretary (Home) of the UP government, “who is the protector of a citizen, and is even then challenging an order of the court directing registration of an FIR and investigation”.
Yameen’s counsel requested the Bench to grant him two weeks’ time to file a counter-affidavit.
“The submissions of the petitioners (police officers and UP government) are on merits, whereas the preliminary objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by the State on behalf of the private respondent, and for addressing it on merits, time to file a counter affidavit is being sought. A petition before this Court is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution… and this Court should not scuttle its jurisdiction while entertaining a matter,” the order issued by the High Court Bench read.
Story continues below this ad
The High Court also noted that the “complainant (Yameen) 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 the police station regarding the commission of cognizable offence and the Officer In-charge refused and neglected to register the FIR”.
In his petition filed in the CJM court, Yameen had said he was unable to lodge a complaint earlier due to fear and only after approaching officials with no success, he decided to seek the court’s intervention to direct the registration of an FIR against the policemen.
On January 9, Vibhanshu Sudheer, the then Sambhal CJM, had ordered registration of the FIR against the police officers. He was transferred to Sultanpur district 11 days later.
He was replaced by Aditya Singh, the judge who had ordered a survey of the Jama Masjid two years ago on a petition claiming that a temple had been demolished to build the mosque. Following this, violence had broken out that left four dead and several, including policemen, injured.
Story continues below this ad
However, within three days following protests by lawyers, Aditya Singh was moved out, and Deepak Kumar Jaiswal was appointed the new Sambhal CJM
