SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Cal) 53

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sourav Chatterjee, Soumya Nag
For the Respondents: Swapan Banerjee, Suddhadev Adak, Ipsita Banerjee, Arun Kumar Maiti (Mohanty), Tirthapati Acharya, R.R. Mohanty, Suman Sengupta, Sambuddha Datta, Santanu Panja, Sabyasachi Banerjee, Anirban Dutta, Shila Das, Tarak Karan

High Courts may exercise writ jurisdiction to order the registration of an FIR and oversight of investigations if local police remedies are inefficacious, involve a conflict of interest, or where allegations demonstrate a serious prima facie case of cognizable offences that authorities have failed to address.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154 and 156(3) - Registration of First Information Report (FIR) - Duty of police to register FIR upon disclosure of cognizable offence - Where allegations involve police officials or suggest a partisan investigation, and available statutory remedies are deemed inefficacious or involve a conflict of interest, the High Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction to ensure compliance with legal mandates and prevent miscarriage of justice. (Paras 15, 17, 21, 22)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Counter Case - Second FIR - Maintainability - When two versions of the same incident exist, a second FIR or counter-case is maintainable and ought to be investigated alongside the initial version to ensure a fair trial, provided it adds distinct allegations or a different perspective on the event. (Paras 12, 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the Court seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR following a violent clash during an election nomination process. A suo-motu criminal case had already been initiated by the police, but the petitioner alleged that the police played a partisan role, protected culprits, and failed to record the petitioner's version of the incident, which involved allegations against police personnel. The petitioner contended that statutory remedies were futile because they required approaching the same officials against whom complaints were leveled.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the police cannot refuse to register an FIR when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence. Given the specific context of bias, where the police were accused of being involved in the wrongdoing, the standard administrative hierarchy for grievance redressal becomes inefficacious. The Court emphasized that an investigation conducted by the same police unit against which allegations are made violates natural justice.

Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable when alternative remedies under the investigative code exist, and whether a second FIR can be registered for the same incident.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a cognizable offence is disclosed, registration of an FIR is a mandatory duty. Writ jurisdiction can be invoked in exceptional cases where normal statutory paths lead to a conflict of interest or where the investigation by local authorities is clearly biased. A counter-case is maintainable as a distinct version of events, ensuring both sides of the occurrence are investigated, particularly when the initial investigation is potentially tainted.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of; direction issued to register the complaint as an FIR and to constitute a Special Investigation Team under the state criminal investigation department for impartial investigation.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top