The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the State of Haryana on a woman lawyer’s plea accusing Gurugram police officials of sexual and physical assault. .The Bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice AG Masih sought response from Haryana Police on the plea seeking an independent investigation into the First Information Report (FIR) allegedly registered in retaliation against her by the police."Issue notice returnable in 4 weeks," the Court ordered..The petitioner, a practicing advocate and an executive member of the Tis Hazari Bar Association, approached the Court seeking clubbing or transfer of multiple FIRs—two filed by her and one filed against her—arising out of an incident that allegedly occurred on May 21, 2025 at Sector 50 Police Station, Gurugram. She also sought disciplinary action against the police officials concerned and a transfer of the investigation to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Delhi Police..According to the petition, she had accompanied her client to the police station in connection with a matrimonial dispute. When her client attempted to file a written complaint against his wife, police officers allegedly obstructed the process. The petitioner was then allegedly assaulted by both male and female police officers, subjected to illegal detention, and offered an unidentified liquid to consume, which she refused.She further alleged that no arrest memo was prepared and no intimation was provided to her family or legal colleagues during the incident. She subsequently lodged two FIRs - one at Subzi Mandi Police Station in Delhi and another at the Women Police Station in Gurugram. These FIRs invoke several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Sections 4 (Punishment) , 74 (assault or use of criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty), 75 (sexual harassment), 79 (act, gesture, or word intended to insult a woman's modesty), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 324(4) (mischief), and 3(5) (criminal conspiracy).She alleged that in retaliation, the police filed an FIR against her at Sector 50 Police Station under Sections 121(1) (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter a public servant from their duty), 132 (using criminal force against a public servant to prevent or deter them from fulfilling their duty), 221( obstructing a public servant in the discharge of their duties), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation by threatening death, grievous hurt, or destruction of property) of the BNS..Today, the Court questioned why the lawyer had gone to the police station. In response, the petitioner's counsel said,"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 counsel added that it was unbelievable that a woman lawyer would assault a male officer. However, the Court was not impressed with the argument. "Not that it’s unbelievable. Things have changed now," it remarked..The counsel then submitted investigation must not to be handled by Sector 50 Police Station. "The very police officers are going to investigate a case where I have complained against them," the Court was told.However, the Court said she can approach the Superintendent of Police (SP) for it. It also opined that she should have approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court."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," it said.However, the counsel pointed to the conduct of the policemen. "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."Ultimately, the Court proceeded to issue notice on the plea. However, it declined the request to stay investigation against her."Join the investigation. This is the only reason you’ve filed this plea," the Court said..During yesterday's hearing, the petitioner's counsel had alleged that police had refused to provide a copy of the FIR despite several requests. The bench had then expressed concern over the necessity of the Supreme Court’s intervention for such relief and asked her to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
