The Court questioned her presence at the station and her demand for an independent probe, remarking: “You are just saying all this because you are a lawyer.”
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the State of Haryana based on a petition filed by a woman lawyer. She has accused Gurugram police officials of physically and sexually assaulting her during an incident at Sector 50 Police Station. The top court, however, refused to stop the investigation against her.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih asked the Haryana Police to file their response to the serious allegations raised by the petitioner.
“Issue notice returnable in 4 weeks,” the Court said.
The woman advocate, who is also an executive member of the Tis Hazari Bar Association in Delhi, has requested the Supreme Court to transfer or club all related FIRs — two filed by her and one lodged against her by the Gurugram police — arising out of an incident that allegedly took place on May 21, 2025, at Sector 50 Police Station, Gurugram.
She also urged the Court to take disciplinary action against the concerned police officers and to transfer the probe to an independent body like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or Delhi Police, as she has lost faith in the local police.
According to her petition, she had gone to the police station with her client who was involved in a matrimonial dispute. When her client tried to submit a complaint against his wife, the police allegedly prevented him from doing so. At that point, she claimed, both male and female officers attacked her, detained her illegally, and even tried to force her to drink an unknown liquid — which she refused.
She also stated that no arrest memo was made, and her family or colleagues were not informed of her detention — a violation of legal procedure.
Following the incident, she filed two FIRs — one at Subzi Mandi Police Station in Delhi and the other at Women Police Station, Gurugram. These complaints include several serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), such as:
- Section 4 (Punishment)
- Section 74 (Assault or use of criminal force to any woman, intending or knowing it likely to outrage her modesty)
- Section 75 (Sexual harassment)
- Section 79 (Insult to a woman’s modesty through act, gesture or word)
- Section 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt)
- Section 126(2) (Wrongful restraint)
- Section 351(2) (Criminal intimidation)
- Section 324(4) (Mischief)
- Section 3(5) (Criminal conspiracy)
However, she claimed that in retaliation, Gurugram Police registered an FIR against her under several other provisions of the BNS, including:
- Section 121(1) (Causing hurt to deter a public servant from duty)
- Section 132 (Using criminal force against a public servant)
- Section 221 (Obstructing a public servant from discharging duties)
- Section 351(3) (Criminal intimidation by threatening death or grievous hurt)
During the hearing, the bench asked why she had gone to the police station. Her lawyer responded:
“We had come out of the Manila Thana. The lady threw a brick at our car. The police then took both the boy and girl to sector 50 Thana. I as the lawyer went to get my client out from there. Just see the behaviour of the police officials in my FIR.”
The lawyer added that it was hard to believe a woman lawyer would physically attack a male police officer.
But the Court disagreed, saying:
“Not that it’s unbelievable. Things have changed now.”
She also argued that the same officers she complained against should not be investigating the case:
“The very police officers are going to investigate a case where I have complained against them,” the Court was told.
To this, the Bench said she could raise that concern with the Superintendent of Police (SP) and further remarked:
“You want investigation by independent agency for FIR registered in Gurgaon, you should go to Punjab and Haryana High Court. You are just saying all this because you are a lawyer.”
The advocate’s counsel firmly replied:
“I have never said lawyer. I am just saying this kind of conduct at the police station with the officer of the court speaks volumes. This is the condition at the moment.”
Eventually, the Court issued a notice but refused to stay the investigation against her.
“Join the investigation. This is the only reason you’ve filed this plea,” the Court remarked.
During a previous hearing, the lawyer’s counsel also complained that the police had refused to give them a copy of the FIR. The Court then questioned why the top court’s intervention was being sought for such basic relief and advised the petitioner to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate instead.
Case Name: AS v. STATE OF HARYANA, W.P.(Crl.) No. 235/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
