Calcutta High Court quashes 15 FIRs against BJP's Suvendu Adhikari

The Calcutta High Court on October 24 quashed fifteen first information reports (FIR) filed by the West Bengal police between 2021 and 2022 against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Leader of the Opposition, Suvendhu Adhikari [Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal &Ors.]

Justice Jay Sengupta also lifted earlier interim orders passed in the matter, including one that restrained the State from filing any more FIRs against Adhikari without the Court’s permission.

Effectively, the Court has now granted Adhikari relief in respect of the several criminal cases filed against him, while deciding on two petitions filed by him to quash such cases, as well as a connection criminal revisional application.

However, an interim order passed in December 2022 by Justice Rajashekhar Mantha, which earlier restricted the State from filing any more FIRs against Adhikari, has been lifted since a final verdict has been pronounced on Adhikari's petitions.

Justice Sengupta also briefly commented on Adhikari's allegation that the criminal cases filed against him were part of a ploy to wreak vengeance after he left the ruling Trinamool Congress party (TMC) to join the BJP in 2020.

The Court mused that it is anyone's guess whether the TMC had deliberately ignored earlier crimes while Adhikari was still its member, or if Adhikari has been falsely implicated for shifting his political allegiance to the BJP.

"If so many cases ... could be started against the present petitioner (Adhikari) after shifting of political allegiance ... one would be at a loss to ponder about whether the petitioner is a habitual offender and quite an incorrigible one. But, the State did not file a single criminal case against him before his shifting of allegiance. Therefore, it will be open to speculation as to whether the State police had been deliberately ignoring any earlier crimes, or is it a fact that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in these cases for shifting political allegiance," the ruling said.

The petitions filed by Adhikari sought directions to quash sixteen FIRs.

In fifteen of the sixteen FIRs, the Court found that either there were no specific allegations against Adhikari or that the alleged offences were not made out against Adhikari, even on a prima facie reading of the case diary.

In the last remaining FIR, the Court noted that Adhikari had not been named as an accused yet in FIR, which involved allegations that some persons entered into a conspiracy to collect money in Adhikari's name as part of a fake job racket.

Therefore, Justice Sengupta concluded that there was no need to specifically quash any FIR in the matter against Adhikari.

Four of the cases before the Court involved multiple accused. Therefore, even if those FIRs have now been quashed with respect to Adhikari, they remain pending with respect to the remaining accused.

The Court has now ordered that a special investigation team (SIT) be formed with officers from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the State Police to finish the probe with respect to the remaining accused.

The Court also took note of the fact that in some of the FIRs, the State expressed that it was not pressing for continuation of the criminal proceedings.

The Court termed this turn of events strange.

"A criminal case is a very serious thing ... , it is very strange indeed that the State, which is the ultimate protector of rights of its citizens, could take such a cavalier stand in deciding not to press or seriously oppose the prayer for quashing in as many as eight criminal proceedings (three formally challenged, the remaining only referred to during hearings). If this was the stand of the State, they might have very well brought an end to the proceedings themselves at an earlier stage," Justice Sengupta said.

The fifteen FIRs quashed in so far as Adhikari is concerned are:

1. FIR registered in Nandigram Police Station involving allegations of assault by BJP workers during a clash between BJP and TMC amid a rally in which Adhikari participated.

2. FIR at Tamluk Police Station, which accused Adhikari of giving a speech that hurt religious sentiments and threatening the Superintendent of Police, Purba Medinipur. The Court observed that "Urging to protect one's own belief or caste or clan has not been made illegal in our laws," before quashing this FIR.

3. FIR at Contai Police Station, where the widow of a security guard assigned to Adhikari claimed that there was foul play in her husband's death. The allegations included that there was some delay in arranging an ambulance for the guard to shift him to a better hospital than the one he was brought to for treating a gunshot injury to his head. The Court questioned how murder charges were added in this case. "At the highest, if at all, one could have thought of starting an FIR with a charge of death due to negligence. One wonders how an FIR under Section 302 of the IPC could be registered over such allegations," Justice Sengupta remarked.

4. FIR at Kulti Police Station, which involved allegations of BJP workers forming an unruly assembly while campaigning for elections.

5. FIR at Contai Police Station which involved allegations that Adhikari and other BJP workers vandalised a TMC office, assaulted TMC workers and outraged the modesty of a TMC worker.

6. FIR at Nandigram Police Station accusing Adhikari of making communally charged statements. "Political figures and parties have been taking up diverse issues. They may have a particular view even about religion, caste and the like. Merely, asking for consolidations of one's own group or protesting against an alleged discrimination against it does not necessarily attract the mischief of inciting hatred against other groups," the Court observed, before quashing this FIR.

7. Three FIRs at Contai Police Station, accusing Adhikari of threatening voters. The Court found that three complaints were registered within minutes of each other, with identical statements, by three different persons. This led the Court to doubt whether these were genuine complaints. "The three proceedings appear to be tainted with a stench of malice," the Court ruled.

8. FIR at Durgachak Police Station, which involved allegations about an unauthorised political rally.

9. FIR at Amherst Police Station involving allegations that a fake and forged photo was posted on Twitter to defame the TMC. Apart from the Court finding that the case could not stand, the State also expressed that it did not wish to press the case.

10. FIR at Nandakumar Police Station, accusing Adhikari of making statements to provoke breach of peace, including that Hinduism is in danger. "Stating certain facts including as regards earlier disturbances and urging one‟s own caste or community to consolidate does not necessarily attract Section 153A," the Court held, while quashing this case.

11. FIR at Jadavpur Police Station, involving allegations that Adhikari threatened to assault TMC workers. The Court found discrepancies between the allegations of assault and the injuries recorded in evidence. The State decided not to press this case as well.

12. FIR at Nandigram Police Station, involving allegations of assault against workers of Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC).

13. FIR at Pandaveswar Police Station with allegations that a person called up a local MLA and tried to influence an election, at Adhikari's behest. Adhikari "cannot be made vicariously liable for any act of the other accused," the Court said.

Senior Advocate Billwadal Bhattacharyya and advocates Moyukh Mukherjee, Aishwarya Bazaz, and Sagnika Banerjee represented Adhikari.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Advocate General Kishor Dutta and Advocates Rudradipta Nandy, Amrita Panja Moulick and Debangsu Dinda appeared for the State.

Deputy Solicitor General Dhiraj Trivedi and advocates Arun Kumar (Mohanty), Sukanta Chakraborty, and Oisani Mukherjee appeared for the CBI.

Senior Advocate Sabyasachi Banerjee and advocates Ayan Poddar, and Syed Kishwar appeared for the complainant who filed the FIR over the death of Adhikari's former security guard.

Advocates Agnish Basu and Vipul Vedant appeared for the complainants in an SC/ST case that was not formally challenged by Adhikari, and hence remains pending.

[Read Judgment]