Sambhal Violence: 'CJM Ignored Mandate Of S. 175 (4) BNSS': UP Govt, ASP Move High Court Challenging Order For FIR Against Cops

The Allahabad High Court on Monday heard the petitions moved by the State of Uttar Pradesh and ASP Anuj Chaudhary, challenging an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Sambhal, directing the registration of an FIR against Chaudhary and other police officials in connection with the Sambhal violence of November 2024. The order was passedlast month by CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer on an application moved by Yameen, the father of an injured youth, alleging that the police officials had opened fire upon his son with the intent to kill him during the Violence.Just a week after CJM Sudheer passed this order in question, he was transferred to Sultanpur by the High Court. Today, Additional Advocate General (AAG) Manish Goyal argued that the Magistrate had “exceeded the boundaries of the BNSS” by ignoring mandatory safeguards under the law. Opening the arguments for the State and the police officer, AAG Goyal contended that the order was legally unsustainable because while CJM exercised powers under Section 175 BNSS to order an FIR, he had failed to adhere to the strict procedural safeguards in the provision, which are designed to protect public servants discharging official duties. Referring specifically to Section 175(4) BNSS, which seeks to protect public servants from frivolous and vexatious criminal proceedings in respect of acts performed in the course of their official functions, the AAG submitted that it mandates a two-step process before an investigation can be ordered against a public servant: Clause (a): Receiving a report from a superior officer. Clause (b): Consideration of the assertions made by the public servant regarding the situation that led to the incident.“The Magistrate is under a mandate to follow clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 175 BNSS. In this case, (a) was followed, but (b) wasn't...whatever submisisons were made by the police officers were disregarded. Clause (b) of Sub-Section (4) had been completely ignored,” Goyal argued. He also pointed out that, although the CJM called for a report from superior officers, which was duly submitted, the court disregarded it. "There is not a whisper in the order about the police report", Goyal argued. “The report was delivered...but no consideration was given to the situation which led to the incident. Clause (b) is mandatory, not optional”, he added. The State further argued that the application filed by the complainant (the father of the alleged victim) before the CJM, upon which the order impugned was passed, did not mention approaching the police station initially, which is a prerequisite under the law. "He [the CJM] went beyond the statute...ignored the entire police report which states that a case has been registered regarding the incident and is being investigated," AAG Goyal submitted."It is not the case that the CJM has exceeded his authority; in fact, he is not even within the bounds of his authority. He went beyond the statute, took part a, ignored part b…it is like forum shopping, which a litigant does. He has exceeded the boundaries of the statute, which is wholly impermissible", he strongly submitted. The AAG also added that the November 2024 Sambhal violence was not a standalone incident but one stemming from commotion at the place. AAG Goyal relied heavily on two recent Supreme Court judgments, including Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. The State of Maharashtra (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 139) and XXX vs. State of Kerala and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 85. The AAG specifically read the following paragraph from the XXX case: "It is hereby clarified that the judicial magistrate would continue to retain the authority to reject an application under sub-section (3) of Section 175, lodged against a public servant, where such magistrate finds that the allegations made therein are wholly untenable, manifestly absurd, or so inherently improbable that no reasonable person could conclude that any offence is disclosed. However, it is needless to observe, such an order of rejection ought not to be based on whims and fancy but must have the support of valid reasons". Before concluding his submissions, the AAG also pointed out that the Police officials in question were not even examined by the CJM concerned. The hearing will continue tomorrow.Read more about what happened in the courtroom here [X/Twitter link]

Sambhal Violence: 'CJM Ignored Mandate Of S. 175 (4) BNSS': UP Govt, ASP Move High Court Challenging Order For FIR Against Cops

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags