New Delhi: Delhi’s district court lawyers on Wednesday called off their indefinite strike after the Delhi Police transferred an ACP and the SHO of Shahdara police station, following a two-day protest over allegations that they threatened advocates who had approached the police station to seek action in an assault case involving a fellow lawyer.
The transfer orders for ACP Manasvi Vashishtha, who was posted as sub-divisional police officer in Gandhi Nagar, and inspector Arun Kumar, the Shahdara SHO, were issued by the Delhi Police headquarters on Wednesday, according to the bar body.
The decision to end the strike followed a meeting between police representatives, Bar Council of Delhi officials and presidents and secretaries of the district court bar associations.
In a resolution passed on Wednesday, the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi said it had decided to call off the ongoing protest “in view of the issuance of the aforesaid transfer/posting orders and the progress made pursuant to the understanding reached during the meeting”.
The committee, however, made it clear that the transfer of the two officers was “not the end of the matter”.
It said an inquiry into complaints lodged by members of the Shahdara Bar Association against the police officials must be completed within two months.
{{/usCountry}}It said an inquiry into complaints lodged by members of the Shahdara Bar Association against the police officials must be completed within two months.
{{/usCountry}}It also set deadlines for action in two FIRs connected with the dispute.
“Immediate and effective steps shall be taken to apprehend the accused persons named in the FIR at Shahdara police station” the resolution said, adding that if they were not apprehended promptly, appropriate legal steps should be initiated for the issuance of non-bailable warrants and opening of a Look-Out Circular, in accordance with law.
The committee also said the investigation in the FIR registered against advocates at Shahdara police station, must be completed within one week.
The developments follow protests that began on Tuesday, when lawyers across Delhi’s district courts abstained from judicial work, demanding the suspension of the two officers and an impartial inquiry into allegations of police high-handedness.
On Wednesday, the committee extended the protest indefinitely and announced plans for a march from Patiala House courts to the Delhi Police headquarters on Thursday.
The dispute arose after advocate Lalit Bansal suffered a serious head injury in an alleged assault on October 23. An FIR was registered at Shahdara police station on a complaint by advocate Amulya Ratan.
According to the bar committee’s account, several advocates visited the police station on the evening of October 23 to seek action against those named in the assault case.
They alleged that the ACP and the SHO assured them that the accused, who were present at the police station, would be arrested. The following day, however, the advocates learnt that the accused had not been arrested and had reportedly been released.
When the lawyers returned to raise concerns over the handling of the case, the ACP allegedly displayed his revolver and threatened and intimidated them, the committee claimed. The allegations against the police officers have not been independently established.
The police have also presented a counter-allegation. According to a senior police officer, the confrontation involved two groups who had gathered at the police station after a dispute in a residential neighbourhood over a motorcycle-related incident.
The officer said an attempt to culpable homicide case was registered on the lawyer’s complaint, while a separate case was registered over alleged misbehaviour with police personnel on duty. The allegation that the ACP pointed his service pistol at the advocates is being investigated, the officer said.
The bar committee had argued that the incident occurred when advocates were seeking action over a serious injury to a member of their fraternity. It also flagged what it described as recurring instances of high-handed conduct by police personnel towards lawyers.