Back
Grants to Abhishek Banerjee, Mulls Restraining Further FIRs
In a significant development that underscores the judiciary's vigilance against potential , the on Monday granted to leader and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee, while indicating that it may pass a broader order restraining the registration of further FIRs against him without the court’s leave. The court’s remarks came amid submissions that multiple criminal complaints were being filed despite earlier , prompting the bench to observe, "Enough is enough."
The case, , arose from an FIR based on a complaint alleging irregularities in clinical practice and distribution of fake medicines. Senior Advocate , appearing for Banerjee, argued that the petitioner was facing a coordinated campaign of litigation by political rivals, similar to the situation considered by the High Court in proceedings concerning leader Suvendu Adhikari.
Background: A Pattern of Multiple Complaints
Banerjee had previously secured from in two earlier writ petitions. Despite those orders, fresh FIRs continued to be lodged. Sankaranarayanan submitted that seven out of sixteen complaints had been filed by Banerjee’s political opponent, who had lost twice to him in elections. “There are more that I have to come and trouble your Lordship for. I don't want to be taking the Court's time with these matters. One political party did this in the past, wrongly, this time it's been done wrongly. Both times it was wrong. We cannot endlessly waste the Court's time,” he argued.
The Additional Advocate General (AAG) for the State sought to distinguish Banerjee’s case from the Adhikari precedent, pointing out that Adhikari’s petition had included prayers for transfer of investigations to the , which were absent here. However, the court appeared unpersuaded by this distinction, focusing instead on the substance of the complaints and the credibility of the complainant.
Court’s Observations: “Nothing is Connected to the Petitioner”
During the hearing, the court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the nature of the allegations. “I have personally seen three complaints. Nothing is connected to the petitioner,” the bench observed. It questioned how the allegations of medical negligence and fake medicines could be linked to Banerjee without an investigation establishing his involvement.
The court also noted that the complainant was a political rival who had lost elections to Banerjee twice. “Same person who has lost twice to him is going on filing complaints,” the court remarked, adding, “Why whistle was not blown one year back?” This pointed observation highlighted the court’s skepticism about the timing and motive behind the complaints.
When the AAG submitted that the complainant was a whistleblower, the court retorted, “He has prescribed the medicine?” – underscoring the lack of direct connection between Banerjee and the alleged acts. The AAG conceded that Banerjee had not directly committed the acts but argued that the allegations could ultimately be connected through his subordinates. The court, however, was not convinced.
: No Till
While dictating the order, the court recorded that in two previous writ petitions, four criminal prosecutions had been questioned, and interim orders had been passed directing the police not to take against Banerjee. The court further noted that in one of those petitions, two out of three FIRs had their genesis in complaints lodged by the same political rival.
The court ultimately directed the police not to take any against Banerjee until . The State was permitted to issue notice, and Banerjee was directed to appear and cooperate with the investigation. The court clarified that was not warranted at this stage. “You investigate and file your . is not required,” the court said.
Legal Analysis: The Spectre of
The case raises important questions about the limits of the criminal justice system when multiple FIRs are filed against a single individual, particularly one in public life. The court’s willingness to consider a preventing further FIRs without its leave signals a robust approach to preventing the misuse of process. This is reminiscent of the protections granted in the Suvendu Adhikari case, where a coordinate bench had similarly restrained the registration of fresh FIRs.
Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan clarified that he was not seeking an absolute restraint on registration of FIRs but suggested that the police could be required to obtain before registering further cases. The court responded that it would consider the suggestion, observing that the issue had not yet been decided in the order.
The court also noted that the investigations were at a and that it was not necessary to conclusively determine the allegations at the interim stage. “Since investigation is at the , this Court need not dilate on prayer for . Court believes that investigation will reveal the true state of affairs,” the bench observed.
Impact on Legal Practice: A Warning Against
This judgment serves as a cautionary tale for litigants who may attempt to circumvent judicial protection by filing successive complaints. The ’s readiness to pass a restraining further FIRs without leave could become a template for other high courts dealing with similar situations of multiplicity of proceedings. Legal practitioners should note that courts are increasingly vigilant about the identity of complainants and the timing of complaints, especially when they coincide with electoral rivalries.
For criminal law practitioners, the case reinforces the importance of promptly seeking and documenting any pattern of harassment through multiple complaints. The court’s observation that the complainant had lost twice to Banerjee suggests that is a relevant factor in assessing the bona fides of a complaint.
Conclusion
The ’s to Abhishek Banerjee, coupled with its indication of a broader restraint order, marks a significant step in curbing potential abuse of the criminal justice system. By questioning the connection between the allegations and the petitioner, and by taking note of the political rivalry, the court has sent a clear message that it will not tolerate frivolous or motivated litigation. As the matter progresses, the legal community will watch closely to see whether the court ultimately imposes a requirement of prior leave for any future FIRs against Banerjee. For now, the message is clear: “Enough is enough.”
