Calcutta High Court Refuses FIR Against Suvendu Adhikari For ‘Spat’ With Police, Says Leader’s Public Use Of Slangs Was ‘In Poor Taste’
The Calcutta High Court has refused a plea for registration of an FIR against BJP Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC for the offences of criminal use of force to prevent a public servant from discharging his duty and wrongful restraint.Adhikari allegedly had an altercation with the police during protest over an issue, and was found having a spat with...
The Calcutta High Court has refused a plea for registration of an FIR against BJP Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC for the offences of criminal use of force to prevent a public servant from discharging his duty and wrongful restraint.
Adhikari allegedly had an altercation with the police during protest over an issue, and was found having a spat with a police officer, allegedly calling him a stooge of the establishment and even using intemperate language.
In refusing to allow registration of an FIR since there was no prima facie cognizable offence made out after a video-clip of the incident had been viewed by Court, a single-bench of Justice Jay Sengupta held:
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. 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 in terms of Section 294 of the Penal Code or is similarly proscribed under a special law, which is not the case here. 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. If such incidents are construed as amounting to offences under Section 341 or 353 of the Penal Code, then it will sound a death knell for a citizen’s right to protest. The framers of our Constitution would have shuddered in fear to think about such interpretation.
These observations came in an application for modification of interim order dated 8th December 2022, by which the Court had directed that no FIRs shall be registered against Adhikari without leave of the Court.
Applicants/respondents prayed that the aforesaid order be vacated/modified to the extent that an FIR be registered against Adhikari for the alleged offences as enumerated above.
It was submitted that the incidents related to 17th August 2023, and that a video clip was available to show that the petitioner had clearly insulted and deterred a public servant from discharging his duties, and that an FIR may be registered on such counts.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order for no-coercive action against Adhikari had come up before the Supreme Court, which had refused to interfere with the same, and that it had directed the Bench presided over by the Chief Justice to decide the matter finally after re-hearing the parties, and that this Bench would have no jurisdiction over the same.
On merits, counsel argued that the petitioner was under grave and sudden provocation, and that the use of slang language, even if proved, would not amount to a cognizable offence.
In evaluating the submissions made by both parties, the Court observed that the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere with the earlier order of no-coercive action would have no bearing on applying for leave to file an FIR because there was no “absolute bar” on the same.
Accordingly, in observing that there was no need to modify the interim orders at the present stage, the Court noted that even in the pendency of another PIL against the petitioner for registration of FIR against him for other incidents, there would be no bar on deciding the present application seeking leave to file FIR on separate and subsequent facts.
However, when adjudicating on the application on merits, the Court found that no prima facie cognizable offence had been made out against the petitioner, and thus leave for file an FIR against the petitioner on such grounds stood rejected.
At least on the present facts and upon considering the allegations made in the letter of complaint and the purported video footage, it does not appear that a cognizable offence is prima facie made out against the petitioner. It is actually doubtful whether even the non-cognizable cases would be made out on the instant facts, therefore, the prayer for leave to file an FIR is rejected, it concluded.
Case: Suvendu Adhikari v The State of West Bengal & ors.
Case No: WPA 25522 of 2023