Attack On ED In West Bengal | Calcutta HC Asks State To Explain Inconsistencies In FIRs Filed By Police, Calls For Case Diaries

The Calcutta High Court has directed the State to file an affidavit explaining the apparent inconsistencies in FIRs filed pertaining to the recent attacks that occurred on members of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) by 'mobs of people' in West Bengal's Sandeshkhali and Bongaon, while the agency was about to conduct a raid on local leader Shahjahan Sheikh in the 'Ration Scam.'

A single bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha noted, that while the agency had registered a complaint before the police station under various sections of the IPC, another FIR had already been registered citing a different version of events before the agency could file its complaint. It said:

There is clear inconsistency between the two FIRs, which disclose completely different versions of the incident. The Court's mind is not free from doubt that the FIR No. 7 may have been pretimed based on a procured complaint, to show prior FIR on the same day against the officials of the ED. In the above circumstances, this Court is desirous of looking into the case diaries and the original two documents. The State shall explain the aforesaid inconsistencies.

ASG SV Raju and DSG Dhiraj Trivedi for the ED approached the Court aggrieved by the impugned FIR No 7 of 2024, claiming that while conducting their raid on Sheikh, they found his premises locked and were unable to contact him, till a mob of around 3000 people began attacking the agency's members with sticks and stones. 

It was submitted that the officials were injured as a result, and their belongings were forcibly removed. It was argued that as per mobile location, Sheikh was present in the house and was responsible for mobilising the mob.

It was argued that while an FIR was filed by the Sub-Inspector (SI) accompanying the raiding party, another FIR No 7 of 2024 had already been registered upon a private complaint. 

The ED was aggrieved by this since the FIR filed by them contained the relevant sections of the IPC while the police had registered the FIR containing 'minor IPC sections' against the accused.

Accordingly, the ED submitted that FIR No 7 was motivated, illegal and was manufactured to shift focus away from the FIRs filed by the agency.

Advocate General for the State argued that the guidelines in Lalita Kumari v State of UP (2012) prevent the high court from interfering with the registration of FIRs.

Upon hearing the arguments, the Court looked at the decision in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal (1992) and held that in this case, the officer in charge who had signed the FIR at 10:30am would not have signed another FIR on the same day against the complaint of the SI at 1:30pm.

Accordingly, in noticing these inconsistencies, the Court called for the case diaries to be placed before it.

It also stayed all proceedings in FIR 7 of 2024 till 31st March 2024.

Case: Enforcement Directorate v The State of West Bengal & Ors

Case No: C. R. R. 164 of 2024