The Supreme Court on Tuesday called on the Uttar Pradesh Police to file a status report after four advocates, including a woman advocate, alleged police inaction over an attack on them in Ghaziabad, LiveLaw reported, in a hearing also reported by LawChakra. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed the authorities to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and property of the petitioners.

Source: LiveLaw

The petition, filed under Article 32 by advocates A Deepa, her husband Deb Kumar, Vipin Sharma and Anup Goyal, alleges that on October 22, Amit Varma and his son Rahul Varma allegedly brought a group of unidentified persons into a residential complex in connection with a dispute over illegal construction, and that the group assaulted the four advocates and others who tried to intervene. The allegations are untested, and the court has expressed no view on the merits.

The petitioners allege that despite the nature of the alleged assault and the injuries sustained, the police initially registered an FIR under relatively minor provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), that a cross-FIR was registered against them on October 25, and that the investigating officer was changed. They have sought a fair and impartial investigation, preservation and examination of CCTV footage, invocation of proper penal provisions, protection for themselves and their families, transfer of the investigation to Delhi Police, and quashing of the cross-FIR.

What was argued in court

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, furnished CCTV footage of the alleged incident and claimed it had still not been seized by the police. Calling the footage shocking, he contended that the police had registered an FIR against the advocates three days after the incident while failing to arrest the alleged aggressors named in the advocates' FIR. He claimed the woman advocate was beaten and throttled, that none of the four advocates levelled even a single blow, and that one advocate suffered a fracture under his eye. He also alleged the new investigating officer was harassing the woman advocate, and prayed for addition of Section 109 BNS to the FIR and a stay of the cross-FIR.

Counsel for the State, appearing on limited instructions, said Section 74 BNS had since been added to the FIR, the investigating officer had been changed, the CCTV footage had been preserved, and a preliminary medical report described the injuries as simple. Justice Bagchi asked the State to examine the medical report relied on by Singh, recording the fracture injury, and take appropriate steps, and observed that the accused had equal rights of investigation into their grievances, so the cross-FIR could not be stayed without hearing them.

One of the four advocates, who was present in court, told the bench that the accused had a CCTV camera installed in front of their house and were continuously stalking the petitioner and her family, and sought protection, highlighting that she had two daughters who go to tuition. The bench ultimately directed the State to file a status report and ensure no harm was caused to the petitioners. The case is A Deepa and Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, W.P. (Crl.) No. 457 of 2026.