IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
Sirajul Islam Gharami – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 14479 of 2023, WPA No. 16254 of 2023, CAN No. 1 of 2023
Decided On : 21-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of case background and procedural history. (Para 1 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. summary of rival arguments concerning fir registration and police bias. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. mandatory nature of fir registration for cognizable offenses and judicial oversight. (Para 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. inadequacy of magistrate's jurisdiction regarding transfer of investigation agency. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. operational directives for case investigation and witness/petitioner security. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
1. While WPA 14479 of 2023 is an application for direction upon the CBI or the NIA for registration of FIR and investigation into the offences alleged, the application being WPA 16254 of 2023 pertains to providing of police protection in respect of post-poll violence.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted and has relied on the written notes as follows. The petitioner and his supporters prior to the Panchayat Elections, 2023 which were scheduled to be held in July, 2023 had decided to file their nominations as independent candidates. Accordingly, on 14.06.2023 at about 11.15 a.m. the petitioner along with other candidates and supporters were on their way to file nominations in respect of Panchayat Election, 2023 in Canning Block No. 1; however, en-route they found that about 600 persons who are supporters and cohorts of the local M.L.A. namely, Paresh Ram Das (respondent no.7) being armed with deadly weapons including firearms, bombs, wooden stick, iron rods, etc. were present in front of the office of the Block Development Officer. At the behest of the local MLA (respondent no.7), such persons had gathered to obstruct and prevent the petitioner and others from filing their nominations even as independent candidates. Upon spotting the petitioner and other candidates near the B.D.O. office, the supporters of the respondent no.7 including respondent nos.8 to 13 started hurling bombs at them. Strangely, Police personnel who were stationed just behind such unlawful assembly comprising of the cohorts of the respondent no.7, suddenly placed themselves between the petitioner and his supporters and his men and the men of the respondent no.7 and instead of taking any action against the men of the respondent no.7 and ensuring safety of the petitioner and other candidates, the Police personnel became aggressive towards the petitioner and his supporters. Suddenly, the miscreants of the ruling dispensation including respondent nos. 8 to 13 who were the men of the respondent no.7 (local MLA) began firing gunshots at the petitioner and others on the clear instigation and support of the Police personnel, particularly the respondent no.4 (Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Canning Zone) and the respondent no.5 (Inspector-in-Charge, Canning Police Station), both of whom were present at the spot. Moreover, the respondent no.4 (Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Canning Zone) and the respondent no.5 (Inspector- in-Charge, Canning Police Station) who were present at the spot illegally collected firearms from the miscreants as aforesaid and fired towards the petitioner and his supporters and companions. As a result of such attack and assault including firing, gunshot injuries were suffered by Sunil Howlader on his left thigh; another person who was accompanying the petitioner namely, Saifuddin Mollah also sustained gunshot injury on the right side of his back whereas one Rafique Gazi sustained an injury on his finger. Though the aforesaid injury reports of the said Sunil Howlader and Saifuddin Mollah clearly indicate gunshot injuries being suffered by them, instead of registering a specific criminal case against the assailants of the said injured persons as well as the petitioner, the Police authorities of the State of West Bengal acting through one Gautam Saha, Sub-Inspector of Police, Canning Police Stati
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau Investigation & Anr.
P. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash & Ors.
Anju Chowdhury vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
M. Subramanium & Anr. Vs. S. Janaki & Anr.
The registration of an FIR is mandatory if it discloses a cognizable offence, and the police cannot conduct a preliminary inquiry at their discretion.
The court emphasized the importance of thorough examination of allegations before transferring an investigation to CBI and highlighted the petitioner's failure to register an FIR or seek remedy under....
The court upheld lower courts' discretion in denying FIR registration, ruling that the petitioner had sufficient evidence and means to substantiate his claims without police assistance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ of mandamus can be declined when seeking to direct registration of FIR before exhausting the available statutory remedies under Cr.P.....
The court emphasized the necessity for independent investigations and adherence to procedural safeguards in police encounter cases, ensuring that the right to life is protected under Article 21 of th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.