Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 818

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Jay Sengupta, J.
Suvendu Adhikari – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 11803 of 2021 IA No: CAN 1 of 2022 With CRR 2703 of 2022 With WPA 25522 of 2022 IA No: CAN 3 of 2024, CAN 4 of 2024
Decided On : 24-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Ms. Aishwarya Bazaz, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee
For the Respondent:Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Mr. Kishor Dutta, Ld. AG, Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick, Mr. Debangsu Dinda, Mr. Agnish Basu, Mr. Arun Kumar (Mohanty), Mr. Ayan Poddar, Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. DSGI, Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Mr. Vipul Vedant, Ms. Oisani Mukherjee, Ms. Syed Kishwar, Advocates

Malicious prosecution claims must show prima facie cases are unfounded; mere political allegations do not suffice to quash FIRs without substantive evidence.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 482 - Malicious prosecution - Petitioner challenged various FIRs alleging false implication after changing political allegiance - High Court permitted limited quashing of FIRs based on lack of specific allegations against petitioner and delay in lodging complaints. - Notably, allegations lacked sufficient grounds to sustain charges; investigation ordered to proceed under Special Investigation Team to ensure impartiality. (Paras 17-34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Leader of the Opposition, claims multiple FIRs were filed against him for political retaliation post-defection from ruling party. The FIRs challenged relate to various alleged incidents, mostly politically charged and publicly embarrassing the petitioner. (Paras 1.2-1.3)

Issues: Did the FIRs establish a prima facie case against the petitioner? Was there malicious intent behind the FIRs as claimed by the petitioner? (Para 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that actions reflecting mere suspicion without credible evidence do not constitute a cognizable offence; issues of political vendetta open the door for scrutiny of maleficence in pursuing FIRs. (Paras 10.2-10.3)

Result: Selected FIRs quashed; calls for effective investigation led by SIT supported by the jurisdictional court. (Paras 18.5, 19.4, 20.8, 23.1, 29.5)

Table of Content
1. description of simultaneous writ petitions and criminal proceedings. (Para 1)
2. petitioner’s claims of malicious prosecution. (Para 2)
3. final orders quashing certain criminal proceedings and delineating directions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J.

1. The two writ petitions being WPA 11803 of 2021 and WPA 25522 of 2022 and the Criminal Revisional Application being CRR 2703 of 2022, after assignment, were taken up together as connected matters. In all these applications, it is the prime contention of the petitioner, the Leader of the Opposition in the State that he has been falsely implicated in all these cases as he had shifted his allegiance from the ruling party in the State to the party in opposition.

1.1. While WPA 11803 of 2021 was filed challenging four distinct criminal proceedings either praying for quashing or seeking transfer of investigation to the CBI, similar prayers were made in WPA 25522 of 2022 in respect of eleven distinct criminal proceedings. On the other hand, the revisional application being CRR 2703 of 2022 was filed challenging a single criminal proceeding. After certain orders had been passed, the matters were assigned to this Court for hearing.

1.2. In WPA 11803 of 2021, the following four criminal proceeding were challenged namely, i) Manicktala Police Station Case No. 28/2021, dated 27.02.2021, ii) Nandigram Police Station Case No. 110/2021, dated 18.03.2021, iii) Tamluk Police Station Case No. 595/2021, dated 19.07.2021, iv) Contai Police Station Case No. 248/2021, dated 07.07.2021. In WPA 25522 of 2022 eleven proceedings came under challenged being (v) Nandigram Police Station Case No. 705/2021, dated 23.10.2021, (vi) Kulti Police Station Case No. 77/2022, dated 04.02.2022, vii) Contai Police Case No. 73/2022, dated 17.02.2022, viii) Contai Police Case No. 74/2022, dated 17.02.2022, ix) 75/2022, dated 17.02.2022, x) Contai Police Station Case No. 83/2022, dated 19.02.2022, xi) Durgachak Police Station Case No. 29/2022, dated 16.03.2022, xii) Amherst Street Police Station Case No. 176/2022, dated 24.07.2022, xiii) Jadavpur Police Station Case No. 178/2022, dated 08.09.2022, xiv) Nandakumar Police Station Case No. 390/2022, dated 28.10.2022, xv) Nandigram Police Station Case No. 1453/2022, dated 11.11.2022. In CRR 2703 of 2022, the petitioner assailed the proceeding in (xvi) Pandeveswar Police Station Case No. 85, dated 16.07.2022.

Submissions advanced on behalf of the parties:

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted and has relied on the written notes as follows.

2.1. The petitioner is the current Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. The petitioner was initially a member of the Trinamool Congress (the present Ruling Party). On 19.12.2020 the petitioner joined the Bhartiya Janta Party (the present Party in Opposition). On 02.05.2021 the petitioner defeated the incumbent Chief Minister of West Bengal in the Nandigram assembly seat. The change of political party in the month of December 2020 at the behest of the petitioner, is taken amiss by the Ruling Party, and consequentially the petitioner is being made to face a barrage of false criminal cases, as a punishment for joining a rival political party and the rights and liberties of the petitioner are being trampled over by the Ruling Party, by misusing its powers over the police machinery. Thus, the petitioner is left with no other option other than to come before this Hon'ble Court and pray for quashing of the FIRs that are initiated against him with malicious intent by the State Government with the help of Police machinery.

2.2. The Respondent State at this final stage of hearing cannot plead rejection of Writ Petition on the ground of misjoinder of cause of action. Initially when the Writ Petition came up for preliminary hearing, and even before notice was issued in the petition, the Advocate General had raised two primary objections while addressing this Hon'ble Cour