PRAYAGRAJ, Feb. 11 -- The Allahabad high court on Tuesday stayed a Sambhal court's order of an FIR against several policemen, including former Sambhal circle officer Anuj Kumar Chaudhary, for allegedly indulging in indiscriminate firing on a crowd, resulting in gunshot injuries to a youth. Justice Samit Gopal passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Anuj Chaudhary and another by the UP government, which were clubbed together by a previous order of this court. An FIR was ordered against Chaudhary on January 9 by the Sambhal chief judicial magistrate. After the stay, the court posted the matter for hearing on February 24, 2026. The case originated from a complaint by Yameen, who had moved an application before then CJM Vibhanshu Sudheer, who allowed the application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS. In his complaint, Yameen alleged that on November 24, 2024, at about 8.45 am, Alam, his son, was selling 'pape' (rusks) and biscuits on his 'thela' near Jama Masjid, Mohalla Kot, Sambhal, when some policemen fired into the crowd with the intention to kill. The then Sambhal kotwali in-charge Anuj Kumar Tomar and the then circle officer Anuj Chaudhary were named in the petition. In its 11-page order, CJM Sudheer had observed that the police cannot invoke the "official duty" shield for criminal acts. Earlier, the additional advocate general (AAG) of UP, Manish Goyal, had taken the plea that while passing the impugned order, the CJM had not followed mandatory provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). In his arguments, the AAG contended that the order was legally unsustainable because while CJM exercised powers under Section 175 of BNSS to order an FIR but he had failed to adhere to the strict procedural safeguards in the provision, which are designed to protect public servants discharging official duties. During the course of hearing, AAG referred 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. He submitted that it mandates a two-step process before an investigation can be ordered against a public servant. First, clause (a) provides for receiving a report from a superior officer. Secondly, clause (b) provides consideration of the assertions made by the public servant regarding the situation that led to the incident....