GHAZIABAD: Even for those who had seen it all, this was a first – a group of lawyers striding into a courtroom mid-session and demanding that the judge hear their case first, and a police lathicharge to remove them when they protested and refused to budge.
Such were the bizarre scenes on Tuesday morning as pandemonium took over the district and sessions court compound here, the confrontation in the courtroom – during which the lawyers, according to eyewitnesses, threw chairs and tables in anger – spilling into vandalism outside as the protesting group set fire to furniture in the court’s police post, damaged three surveillance cameras and the CCTV server.
A group of around 50 lawyers interrupted proceedings in district and sessions judge Anil Kumar’s court around 11.30am, court officials said. Led by advocate Nahar Singh Yadav, they wanted the judge to stop hearing the case he was attending to and take up theirs immediately.
“The judge was taken aback by this intrusion,” a lawyer present in the courtroom during the incident told TOI. “The judge advised them to wait for their turn. ‘Why should I hear the issue before the current matter’, he asked.”
“A lawyer from the group that had barged told the judge to transfer the case to another court if he did not give their case priority,” the witness added. ‘After this, they began raising slogans against the district judge. The judge stood up, removed his robe and went to the resting room attached to his chamber. The court staff informed police,” the witness added.
Police were initially trying to escort the lawyers out, but the melee worsened when the protesting lawyers tried to force themselves into the judge’s chambers and police stopped them. Sources said a senior police officer was manhandled, after which the lathicharge began. Police safely escorted the judge out. Three lawyers got injured and were taken to hospital for treatment of head injuries.
Police said they had deployed additional forces on the compound, which houses 50 courtrooms and has the special CBI court in an adjacent building.
The case the lawyers wanted the judge to take up involves a land transaction in which a couple of them had been cheated and the accused, named in an FIR after a court order, had got bail. The lawyers wanted this case heard first.
Additional commissioner of police Dinesh P Kumar said, “Advocate Nahar Singh Yadav, former president of the bar association and a Samajwadi Party functionary, along with his son advocate Abhishek Yadav, advocate Dinesh Yadav and others, tried to exert pressure on the district judge. Police intervened and dispersed using mild force. At that time, some advocates went to the police chowki inside the court premises and torched it.”
Nahar Singh Yadav told TOI they had only “requested the judge to hear a case of cheating in which a lawyer was a party”. “But the judge did not address our concern and called the police. I also received injuries,” he said.
DCP (city) Rajesh Singh said that on the basis of complaints made by a court staffer and a sub-inspector, two FIRs had been filed against Nahar, Abhishek, Dinesh and others. The FIRs invoke identical BNS Sections 3 (5) (common intention), 61 (2) (criminal conspiracy), 121 (1 & 2) (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant from duty), 191 (2) (rioting), 191 (3) (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 324 (4) (mischief causing damage), and 326 (G) (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house). Sections of the Seven Criminal Law Act 1932 and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act were also invoked against the lawyers.
The land dispute stems from a deal Abhishek and his lawyer friend Jitendra Singh had finalised for a plot worth Rs 1.5 crore at Dasna. According to a police complaint filed by Jitendra, the plot measures 1.8 acres and the deal finalised on February 2 this year. After this, he and Abhishek paid Rs 90 lakh — Rs 50 lakh cash and Rs 40 lakh online — to the sellers, but didn’t get possession. Later, they later came to know a part of the land being sold to them was govt property and heavily encroached on. But the sellers refused to give them a refund. They moved court as a result.