Sambhal Violence : CJM Court Orders FIR Against ASP Anuj Chaudhary, Former SHO & Others

The allegations against the police officials pertain to opening fire with the intent to kill, which left a local youth named Alam grievously injured.

CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer thus allowed the application moved under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by Yameen, the father of the injured youth.

The application alleged that on November 24, 2024, at about 8:45 am, the applicant's son was selling 'pape' (rusks) and biscuits on his thela near Jama Masjid, Mohalla Kot, Sambhal. The complainant alleged that the named police officials suddenly started firing at the crowd with their weapons with the intention to kill.

The applicant's son abandoned his cart and ran for his life; however, he was hit by two bullets in the back and one in the hand. He fell on the spot and was later treated at a hospital in Meerut, where he underwent surgery. During the treatment, the doctors removed a bullet from the applicant's body.

In the status report filed by the police, the court was apprised that although the applicant's son was shot, the bullet recovered from his body, which was identified as a .32 bore (7.65 mm) projectile, was of a calibre not used by the police force.

Court's Observations

Perusing the police report and medical records, the Court noted that while it was clear the victim was hit by gunshots, the identity of the shooter remained a matter of investigation.

The Court observed that only the victim can reveal the true facts of the incident. It said that since "attempt to murder" is a crime of a very serious nature, the Court reasoned that it is unlikely a victim would spare the actual perpetrator to wrongly accuse someone else.

“In such a situation, it is clear that if a heinous crime such as attempted murder is committed against someone, the victim will accuse the person who attempted to commit the crime,” the Court remarked.

In its 11-page order, the Court also observed that the police cannot invoke the “official duty” shield for criminal acts. Referring to the Supreme Court's rulings, the CJM noted that firing upon a person cannot be considered a discharge of official duties.

The Court thus rejected the police's preliminary defence regarding the bullet bore as it noted that the police report was 'suspicious' and contradictory to the medical evidence, which explicitly noted a "Gunshot wound" and "Police firing in riot".

Finding that a prima facie cognizable offence was disclosed, the Court concluded that the truth could only be unearthed through a proper investigation.

"In the present matter, it is necessary to bring the actual truth before the Court...investigation is necessary and in the interest of justice", the CJM remarked.

Consequently, the Court allowed the application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS and directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of Sambhal to register a case regarding the incident and ensure that an investigation is conducted.

The police have been ordered to submit a compliance report regarding the registration of the FIR within 7 days.