The legal ripples from Sambhal’s November 2024 violence reached Allahabad High Court Monday, where petitions by Uttar Pradesh and ASP Anuj Chaudhary contested a magistrate’s FIR against officers. Tuesday brings the next chapter with full arguments.
Presiding Justice Sumeet Gopal reviewed the challenge to CJM’s nod for Yamina’s complaint—father of a riot-injured youth alleging lethal police gunfire.
State’s AAG Manish Goyal, alongside AK Sand, hammered BNSS Section 175(4) non-compliance: the mandatory pre-investigation steps for public servant cases were skipped, exposing officials to malice-driven suits.
Goyal pointed to absent prior station FIR mention and ignored police documentation of an active investigation. The magistrate’s ‘ultra vires’ act disregarded duty protections, they argued.
Framing the unrest as systemic disorder from site tensions, UP rejected the lone-incident portrayal.
This case tests judicial checks on magisterial powers during crises. Pro-police voices hail the petitions as bulwarks against hasty blame; activists push for victim-led inquiries.
Sambhal context: Clashes erupted violently, prompting force deployment. Injuries fueled FIR bids, now under HC lens.
Tuesday’s hearing may yield interim relief or deeper probes, shaping precedents for officer immunity in volatile enforcement.