The Supreme Court today called on the Uttar Pradesh Police to file a status report after four advocates, including a woman advocate, alleged police inaction with regard to an attack on them in Ghaziabad.

A bench of CJI 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.

The Court passed the order after perusing CCTV footage of the alleged incident, which Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, furnished. Singh claimed that the CCTV footage had still not been seized by the police.

"This is shocking," he exclaimed, contending that the police had registered an FIR against the advocates 3 days after the incident, while failing to arrest the “aggressors” in response to the advocates' FIR.

Singh contended that the woman advocate was mercilessly beaten and “throttled” by men, while neither of the 4 advocates levelled even a single blow. He further asserted that the persons who attacked the 4 advocates were outsiders and formed an unlawful assembly. He also claimed that one of the advocates suffered a fracture under his eye.

The senior counsel alleged that the investigating officer in the case was changed, though the victims did not demand such a change. He argued that the new IO was harassing the woman advocate and making objectionable remarks during interactions.

"The way they are talking...'tumhare jaise vakeel bahot dekhe hain'!" Singh submitted. It was claimed that the IO also made comments on the woman advocate's profession (“aapka toh umar hi nahi aaya, vakeel kahan se ho gaye?”)

Counsel for the State, upon limited instructions, contended that Section 74 of BNS had since been added to the FIR and the IO had been changed. He also stated that the CCTV footage had been preserved and a preliminary medical report had been obtained, which described the injuries as 'simple'.

Singh, however, expressed reservations about the new IO, alleging that the newly appointed officer was harassing the petitioners. He submitted that the original IO was changed as he was not so “cooperative” with the other side. Singh prayed for the addition of Section 109 BNS to the FIR and stay of the cross-FIR registered against the advocates.

In response, Justice Bagchi asked the State to examine the medical report relied upon by Singh (recording the fracture injury) and take appropriate steps. The judge further expressed that the accused had equal rights of investigation into their grievances, as such, the cross-FIR could not be stayed without hearing them. Singh then requested that atleast the IO may be changed.

One of the four advocates, who was present in court, told the bench that the accused had a CCTV installed infront of their house and were continuously stalking the petitioner and her family. She sought protection, highlighting that she had 2 daughters who go to tuition etc.

Ultimately, the bench directed the State to file a status report and ensure that no harm was caused to the petitioners.

Background

The petition has been filed by four advocates, A Deepa, her husband Deb Kumar, Vipin Sharma and Anup Goyal, under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the Uttar Pradesh Police failed to register an FIR invoking appropriate offences qua their alleged assault.

According to the petition, the incident took place on October 22, when 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. As per claims, the group assaulted the four advocates and others who attempted to intervene.

The petitioners allege that despite the nature of the assault and the injuries sustained, the police initially registered FIR under relatively minor provisions of the BNS. They highlight that a cross-FIR was registered against them on October 25 and that the investigating officer changed.

The petitioners have sought directions for a fair and impartial investigation, preservation and examination of CCTV footage, invocation of proper penal provisions, protection for themselves and their families, and transfer of the investigation to Delhi Police.

The petitioners have further sought quashing of the cross-FIR.

Case : A Deepa & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. W.P.(Crl.) No. 457/2026