A court in Chandausi has directed the registration of a first information report against former Sambhal Circle Officer Anuj Chaudhary, former Sambhal Kotwali in-charge Anuj Tomar and unidentified police personnel over allegations linked to the Sambhal violence of 2024, intensifying scrutiny of policing during the episode that left several people injured.The order was passed on January 9 by Chief Judicial Magistrate Vibhanshu Sudhir after hearing a plea filed by the father of a man who sustained gunshot injuries during the unrest. The complainant alleged that his son was fired upon by police personnel amid the clashes and that earlier attempts to secure an FIR had not yielded results.
According to the complaint, the injured man was present in the area during the violence when firing took place. The petitioner contended that the use of firearms by the police was unwarranted and disproportionate, resulting in serious injuries. He further alleged that the local police station failed to act on representations seeking a formal investigation, prompting an approach to the court under provisions that allow judicial intervention when police action is disputed.
After considering the submissions, the magistrate ordered the police to register an FIR and proceed in accordance with law. The directive names the two former officers and unidentified personnel, leaving the scope of investigation open to identify all those involved and determine individual responsibility. Court records indicate that the magistrate found sufficient grounds to warrant a criminal probe at this stage, without expressing any view on guilt.
The Sambhal violence of 2024 had drawn attention across Uttar Pradesh after confrontations between residents and security forces led to injuries and property damage. Authorities at the time cited crowd control challenges and asserted that force was used to prevent escalation. Families of those injured, however, have maintained that the response was excessive and lacked accountability, a claim now set to be examined through the criminal justice process.
Legal observers say the order underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that allegations against law enforcement are tested through investigation rather than dismissed administratively. Registration of an FIR does not imply culpability, they note, but it triggers statutory procedures including collection of evidence, statements of witnesses and, where necessary, forensic examination.
The case is also being viewed in the wider context of debates over police use of force during public order situations. Courts across the country have repeatedly emphasised that firearms must be a last resort and that every discharge requires justification consistent with constitutional protections. Human rights advocates argue that transparent inquiries are essential to maintain public trust, particularly when civilians allege harm at the hands of the state.
For the families involved, the court’s order represents a step toward having their grievances formally examined. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the injured man continues to deal with the physical and financial consequences of the incident and that accountability is necessary both for redress and deterrence. The defence side has yet to place its version on record following the FIR order.
Officials in the district administration said they would comply with the court’s directions. The police are expected to register the case at the appropriate station and begin the investigation under the supervision mandated by law. Senior officers may review the probe to ensure procedural compliance, given that the allegations concern actions taken by personnel while on duty.