'Political Overtones Cannot Be Brushed Aside': Calcutta HC Stays Proceedings Against BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari, Brother In Tarpaulins Theft Case

The Calcutta High Court on Monday ordered a stay on all further proceedings in a case of alleged tarpaulin theft against Leader of Opposition in West Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari and his brother Soumendu Adhikari. 

The Court was adjudicating upon a petition filed by Suvendu Adhikari and his brother Soumendu, seeking quashing of an FIR registered by Contai police in which they and three others have been accused of stealing tarpaulins from the civic body's godown on May 29.

Justice Kausik Chanda was of the opinion that the "political overtones" of the criminal case initiated against Adhikari brothers, after they changed their affiliation from the ruling political party to the political party in opposition, cannot be brushed aside.

"The present criminal proceeding is one of the contemporaneous criminal cases launched against the petitioner no. 1 soon after the change of his political affiliation. In view of the aforesaid, prima facie, findings I am of the opinion that an exceptional case has been made out to pass an interim order in this case," the Court said.

It added,

"Petitioner no. 1 (Adhikari) is a member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly and he is the current leader of the opposition. The petitioner no. 1 was the Transport Minister of the State cabinet while he was a member of the political party presently in power in this State. He became a renegade and joined the rival political party of the State in the month of December 2020. Petitioner no. 2 is the brother of the petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 2 is the erstwhile Chairman of the concerned municipality. He also left the ruling political party of the State and joined the political party in opposition."

Thus, it is directed that there will be a stay on all further proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur till six weeks after the ensuing Puja vacation.

Arguments

Senior advocate P.S. Patwalia appearing for Adhikari and his brother had contended before the Court that the petitioners had been implicated since they had changed their political affiliations. He had further argued that Adhikari could not be implicated merely on the basis of the statements of a co-accused due to the expressive bar under Section 25 (Confession to police officer) of the Evidence Act.

It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had been implicated in at least five criminal cases within a short span immediately after his change of political affiliation. Such consecutive criminal cases lodged against the petitioner by the State shows mala fide and malice of the State against the petitioner, it was argued. Hence a quashing of proceedings was sought.

On the other hand, senior advocate Kishore Datta appearing for the State submitted that since the complaint dated June 1, 2021, discloses cognizable offences it is mandatory for the police to lodge an FIR. He further argued that statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 implicate Adhikari and that there had been a recovery of a total of 41 stolen tarpaulins.

Observations

The Court observed at the outset that the circumstances in which the relevant FIR was registered are 'quite unusual and give rise to a suspicion.'

The Court noted that on May 29, 2021 the Chairman of the concerned municipality had himself lodged a complaint before the police alleging that there was an attempt to 'loot' some tarpaulins to a vehicle by some delinquents who were the associates of Adhikari.

On receipt of such information, he had rushed to the spot and locked the godown and thereafter proceeded to only make a general diary entry dated May 29, 2021. No FIR had been registered on the basis of the compliant, the Court noted further.

However, two days later a member of the Board of Administrators of the concerned municipality lodged an FIR envisaging a purported version of the incident, the Court further recounted.

"It is difficult to accept the modified version of the said FIR by one of the members of the Board of Administrators registered after two days of the alleged incident, when the Chairman of the municipality himself claimed to have visited the place of occurrence immediately after the alleged incident, and informed the police that there had been an attempt to take away the tarpaulin sheets. In the said complaint the Chairman did not name the petitioner no. 2 and attributed no specific role to the petitioner no.1", the Court remarked.

Furthermore, the Court proceeded to opine that 'prima facie' it is of the opinion that the investigating agency ought not to have registered the relevant FIR when the complaint of the Chairman dated May 29, 2021, relating to the same incident disclosing cognizable offences had already been diarised before them. An FIR should have been registered on the basis of the said complaint, the Court stated.

Justice Chanda also observed that the only legal evidence against the petitioners are statements of witnesses which are hearsay in nature and without any evidentiary value.

"Apart from these statements, during the course of investigation nothing has been collected to implicate the petitioners in this case", the Court remarked.

Opining that an 'exceptional case' has been made out for a stay order, the Court ruled,

"In view of the aforesaid, prima facie, findings I am of the opinion that an exceptional case has been made out to pass an interim order in this case. Accordingly, there shall be stay of all further proceedings being G.R. Case no. 990 of 2021 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur arising out of Contai Police Station Case no. 193 of 2021 dated 01.06.2021 under Sections 448/379/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Sections 51/53 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, as against the petitioners, till six weeks after the ensuing Puja vacation."

The respondents were directed to file their affidavits-in-opposition within 2 weeks after the Puja vacation. A reply if any was ordered to be filed within 1 week thereafter.

The matter is slated to be heard 4 weeks after the puja vacation.

Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal 

Click Here To Read/Download Order