Calcutta High Court refuses to allow FIR against Suvendu Adhikari for calling police officer a TMC stooge

In yet another relief for BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari, the Calcutta High Court recently refused to allow registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against him for his alleged spat with a police officer in August this year [Suvendu Adhikari vs State of West Bengal]..The State moved the Court seeking permission of the court to register an FIR against Adhikari, who had allegedly deterred a police officer from discharging his duty and had even called the officer a "stooge" of the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) party.However, single-judge Justice Jay Sengupta refused to allow the plea."What appears from the complaint and the video (of the incident) is that an altercation purportedly ensued between the police and the petitioner (Adhikari) after a protest over an issue. In the midst of this, Adhikari was found having a spat with a police officer, allegedly calling him a stooge of the establishment and even using intemperate language," the Court noted. By an order passed in December last year, single-judge Justice Rajasekhar Mantha had ordered the West Bengal Police not to register any new FIR against Adhikari without prior permission of the court. Justice Mantha had also quashed nearly 26 FIRs registered against Adhikari, which the BJP leader claimed were filed within a span of 2 years of his joining the saffron party and leaving TMC. In view of the said order, the State moved the High Court seeking permission to register FIR in the present case.The Court refused permission but it said that the language used by Adhikari for the officer was in bad taste."It is made clear that even under grave provocation, utterance of slang language in public, is an act done in poor taste and is not expected of a political leader of some stature or, for that matter, any public figure," the judge opined. At the same time, a mere usage of slang language even in public discourse would not amount to a cognizable offence, except if the same amounts to obscenity or is proscribed under a special law which is not the case here, the Court added. "The purported acts of the petitioner on the particular date prima facie did not amount to assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty. Therefore, Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is prima facie not attracted," the Court held. It further said that the incident in question also would not amount to wrongful restraint as the video clip showed that Adhikari was moving away while having such conversation. "If such incidents are construed as amounting to offences under Section 341 or 353, then it will sound a death knell for a citizen’s right to protest. For instance, a partisan police officer can then simply broach a conversation with the protesters, lead them to an altercation and then, arrest them. The framers of our Constitution would have shuddered in fear to think about such interpretation," the Court stated. .Senior Advocate Paramjit Singh Patwallia along with advocates Rajdeep Majumder, Sourav Chatterjee, Moyukh Mukherjee, Basuri Swaraj, Harshika Verma and Aishwarya Bazaz appeared for Suvendu Adhikari.Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay along with advocates Anirban Ray, Rudradipta Nandy, Soumen Mahanty, Piyush Kumar Roy, Amrita Panja Moulick, Arka Kumar Nag and Debanshu Dinda represented the State. Additional Solicitor General Ashok Kumar Chakrabarti along with advocates Arun Kumar Maiti (Mohanty), Sukanta Chakraborti and Oishani Mukherjee represented the CBI. .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.