PRAYAGRAJ, June 13 -- The Allahabad high court has stayed further proceedings in a criminal case against 22 persons accused in the Sambhal violence linked to the court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. The case stems from violence that broke out on November 24, 2024, during the survey of the mosque. Following the incident, a sub-inspector lodged an FIR at Kotwali police station against several persons on charges including rioting and incitement. Hearing a petition filed by accused Subhan and 21 others, Justice Vani Ranjan Agrawal directed the state government and other respondents to file their replies and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks. The petitioners had moved the high court under Section 528 (inherent powers of the high court) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in the FIR registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and the Arms Act at Kotwali police station in Sambhal district. The accused also challenged the cognisance and summoning order dated February 20, 2025, as well as the May 15, 2025 order framing charges passed by the court of the additional sessions judge/special judge at Chandausi in Sambhal. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the charge-framing order had been passed without properly considering the facts and settled legal position. It was further contended that the FIR lodged by the police against 21 named accused and 800-900 unidentified persons was based on false and frivolous allegations and was intended to harass the applicants. The counsel submitted that the names of the petitioners surfaced on the basis of certain videos, but there was no electronic evidence establishing their identity or involvement in the alleged offences. It was also pointed out that a coordinate bench of the high court had, on May 13, 2026, stayed proceedings against four other accused in a similar case. After hearing both sides, the court, in its June 8 order, observed, "Prima facie, the matter requires consideration," and stayed further proceedings in the case....