Four advocates approach the Supreme Court alleging Ghaziabad Police failed to register an attempt to murder FIR over an October 22 assault.
Four advocates, including a woman lawyer, have approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the Uttar Pradesh Police failed to register an FIR for attempted murder after they were allegedly assaulted by a group of unidentified men in Ghaziabad over a dispute concerning illegal construction.
Four Advocates Move Supreme Court Under Article 32
The petition has been filed by four advocates — A. Deepa, her husband A. Deb Kumar, Vipin Sharma and Anup Goyal — who have alleged that they were brutally assaulted on October 22, 2026, at a residential complex in Ghaziabad.
According to the petition, the incident took place at approximately 9 pm when Amit Varma and his son, Rahul Varma, allegedly brought a group of unidentified persons into the residential complex. The group allegedly assaulted the four advocates and other residents who attempted to intervene and rescue them.
The petitioners have alleged that the assault was connected with a dispute concerning illegal construction in the residential complex. They have further claimed that the incident involved serious physical violence, but the police failed to invoke the appropriate penal provisions despite the nature of the allegations and the injuries sustained by the victims.
Following the incident, petitioner A. Deepa approached the Indirapuram Police Station and reported the alleged assault. After a medical examination and verification of CCTV footage, the police registered an FIR.
However, the petitioners have objected to the nature of the offences incorporated in the FIR, arguing that the sections invoked do not adequately reflect the seriousness of the alleged attack.
Petitioners Challenge Invocation Of Relatively Lesser Offences
According to the petition, the FIR was registered under Sections 115(2), 131, 191(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with the provision referred to in the complaint as Section 352(2).
These provisions concern offences including voluntarily causing hurt, assault or criminal force, rioting and intentional insult with the intention of provoking a breach of peace.
The advocates have argued that the police failed to incorporate more stringent provisions despite the alleged brutality of the incident.
The petition specifically seeks directions to add Section 109 of the BNS, which deals with attempt to murder, Section 117(3), concerning voluntarily causing grievous hurt resulting in permanent disability or a state of coma, and Section 74, relating to assault or criminal force against a woman with the intention of outraging her modesty.
The petitioners have also highlighted that more than seven days had passed since the incident, but the accused persons had allegedly not been apprehended. They claim that the failure to take effective action has left the victims and their families apprehensive about possible retaliation.
The petition further states that a letter was sent by the Supreme Court Bar Association to the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, drawing attention to the alleged assault and the failure to invoke appropriate provisions of the BNS.
Cross-FIR Registered Against Advocates
The petitioners have further raised concerns over the registration of a cross-FIR against them. According to the plea, the police registered a counter-case against the advocates on October 25, three days after the alleged assault.
They have also pointed out that the investigating officer was subsequently changed, following which their statements were recorded again.
The petitioners have questioned the manner in which the investigation has been conducted and expressed apprehension that the registration of the cross-FIR could adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings.
They have contended that the authorities must ensure an impartial investigation into the incident rather than treating the allegations as an ordinary neighbourhood dispute.
Supreme Court Bar Association Writes To UP Police Authorities
A significant aspect highlighted in the petition is the intervention by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
The SCBA reportedly wrote to the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, bringing the alleged assault to their attention. The communication highlighted the seriousness of the injuries and the alleged failure of the investigating authorities to incorporate appropriate provisions of the BNS.
The petitioners have relied upon these developments to demonstrate that concerns regarding the police investigation had also been brought to the attention of senior police authorities.
Despite these representations, the petitioners have alleged that no stringent provisions were added to FIR No. 880/2026 and that the accused persons remained at large.
Reliefs Sought Before The Supreme Court
Through their Article 32 petition, titled A. Deepa & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., the advocates have sought several directions from the Supreme Court.
Their principal prayers include:
- A direction to the Indirapuram Police Station to incorporate Sections 74, 109 and 117(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the existing FIR.
- Transfer of the investigation to a police station in Delhi to ensure an independent and impartial investigation.
- Quashing of the cross-FIR registered against the advocates.
- Adequate police protection for the petitioners and their family members, if considered necessary.
- Directions for a fair investigation, including proper recording of statements and preservation and examination of CCTV footage and other relevant evidence.
- A status report detailing the progress of the investigation and the steps taken by the police.
The petitioners have emphasised that an effective investigation is necessary not only to identify and prosecute those responsible for the alleged assault but also to ensure the safety of the victims and their families.
Matter Mentioned Before Chief Justice Of India
The petition was filed pursuant to the mentioning of the matter before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on October 30, 2026. Following the mentioning, the CJI directed that the petition be filed before the Supreme Court.
The petition has been filed through Advocate Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra.
As of November 2, 2026, the Supreme Court is yet to take up the petition for hearing. Therefore, no judicial findings have been recorded on the allegations or the reliefs sought by the advocates.
The matter brings attention to concerns surrounding the protection of members of the legal profession, police accountability and the requirement of an impartial investigation when serious allegations of physical assault are raised.
The petitioners have invoked the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32, which enables individuals to approach the Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
The proceedings will be significant in determining whether the Supreme Court considers it necessary to issue directions concerning the investigation, protection of the advocates and the alleged failure of the Uttar Pradesh Police to invoke appropriate penal provisions.
For further updates on important judicial developments, readers can visit The Legal Observer’s National News section and explore its legal coverage and discussions on the official YouTube channel.
