The Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu cognisance of an incident involving the alleged assault of a practising advocate by police personnel from a neighbouring State and raised concerns regarding the delay in registration of a First Information Report. The matter came before a division bench of the High Court after reports that a lawyer identified as Amit was allegedly assaulted by Haryana Police personnel dressed in plain clothes in the Nayagaon area of Chandigarh, which is adjacent to Punjab. The incident was said to have occurred on November 30, and despite a written complaint being made by the advocate at the relevant police station on the same day, no FIR had been registered for several weeks thereafter. Lawyers practising before the High Court, alarmed by the lack of police action, passed a resolution and announced their intention to strike, pressing for immediate registration of an FIR in the matter.
During the hearing, the Court observed that the written complaint prima facie disclosed the commission of cognisable offences, yet the absence of a timely FIR raised serious questions about the enforcement of law and the protection of lawyers practising in the jurisdiction. The bench noted that the failure to register an FIR in circumstances where the complaint itself disclosed prima facie cognisable offences was inexplicable, and directed the State of Punjab to explain the reasons for the delay. The Court issued a notice to the Director General of Police, requiring an affidavit to be filed explaining the status of the investigation and why no FIR had been lodged against the accused persons despite the passage of time since the alleged incident.
In response to the Court’s concerns, the Punjab Government informed the High Court that an FIR had since been registered against unknown persons in connection with the alleged assault. The registration of the FIR against unidentified individuals was presented as the first formal step taken by the police in response to the complaint, although questions of accountability and identification of the specific police personnel involved remained unresolved. The Court’s suo motu intervention highlighted the judiciary’s unease over the delayed action by law enforcement authorities in addressing an apparent offence against a member of the legal profession, and sought to ensure that procedural safeguards, including timely registration of FIRs, were upheld in the circumstances.
The lawyers’ association’s decision to suspend work underscored the legal community’s concern over what was perceived as inaction by the police in the face of an alleged assault on a colleague, and the High Court’s orders reflected an attempt to balance institutional confidence in law enforcement with the need for accountability. In directing the State to file a detailed affidavit through the DGP, the High Court signalled that it would continue to monitor developments in the case, ensure compliance with procedural requirements, and address any further lapses in the investigation. The proceedings illustrated the Court’s readiness to address matters affecting the rule of law and the safety of legal practitioners, particularly where there are allegations of misconduct by law enforcement officers operating across jurisdictional boundaries.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.