The Calcutta High Court on Monday indicated that it may pass an order restraining the registration of further FIRs against Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee without the leave of the Court, amid submissions that multiple criminal complaints were being filed against him despite earlier interim protection.

“Enough is enough, I have been hearing from 4th May…now I am going to pass orders relying on the one passed in Suvendu Adhikari's case by a coordinate bench,” the Court remarked during the hearing.

The Court was hearing a petition concerning an FIR arising out of a complaint alleging irregularities relating to clinical practice and fake medicines. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for Banerjee.

During the hearing, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the nature of the complaint and questioned how the allegations could be connected to Banerjee without an investigation establishing his involvement.

“I have personally seen three complaints. Nothing is connected to the petitioner,” the Court observed.

The Court further remarked that while the police could continue their investigation, custodial interrogation of Banerjee was not warranted at this stage.

“You investigate and file your chargesheet. Custodial interrogation is not required,” the Court said.

When the Additional Advocate General submitted that the case involved fake medicines and that the complainant was a whistleblower, the Court questioned the connection between the allegations and Banerjee.

“He has prescribed the medicine?” the Court asked, adding, “Why whistle was not blown one year back?”

The Court also noted that the complainant was a person who had lost elections against Banerjee. “Same person who has lost twice to him is going on filing complaints,” the Court remarked.

The Additional Advocate General, however, submitted that although Banerjee had not directly committed the alleged acts, the allegations could ultimately be connected to him through his subordinates.

The Court said the investigation could proceed but indicated that it was not inclined to permit coercive action against Banerjee at this stage. “Carry on your investigation, but no coercive steps at this stage. I am not satisfied with the complaint,” the Court said.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that Banerjee was facing a situation similar to that considered by the High Court in proceedings concerning BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari.

“In Suvendu Adhikari's case, we have the exact same prayer. In our earlier plea your Lordship granted us relief in May and June. After those two orders, these FIRs were filed, exactly like in Adhikari's case, trying to circumvent the protection we have,” he submitted.

He further submitted that seven out of 16 complaints had been filed by Banerjee's political opponent.

“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,” Sankaranarayanan submitted.

The AAG distinguished the present proceedings from Adhikari's case, pointing out that the latter involved prayers for transfer of investigations to the CBI, which were absent in Banerjee's petition.

While dictating the order, the Court recorded that in two previous writ petitions, four criminal prosecutions had been questioned and the Court had passed interim orders directing the police not to take coercive steps against Banerjee.

The Court also noted that in one of those petitions, two out of three FIRs had their genesis in complaints lodged by respondent no. 6.

The Court recorded that an earlier order had noted that the respondent was a political rival who had lost an election to Banerjee.

“It is also striking that in one of the petitions, two out of three FIRs had their genesis in complaints lodged by respondent 6,” the Court noted.

At the same time, the Court observed that the investigations were still at a nascent stage and that it was therefore not necessary to conclusively determine the allegations at the interim stage.

“Since investigation is at the nascent stage, this Court need not dilate on prayer for interim relief. Court believes that investigation will reveal the true state of affairs,” the Court observed.

On the allegations concerning medical negligence, the Court noted that the complaint may prima facie disclose a case of medical negligence, but questioned whether Banerjee was prima facie connected with the alleged acts.

The Court ultimately directed the police not to take any coercive steps against Banerjee till November 30.

The State was permitted to issue notice, and Banerjee was directed to appear and cooperate with the investigation. The Court also recorded the submission of Banerjee's senior counsel that the subsequent complaints leading to the FIRs were allegedly a “ploy” to circumvent the protection earlier granted by the Court.

The Court further indicated that if such complaints continued, it could pass a broader order. “Let me add one more paragraph that if this continues Court will pass blanket order preventing any further FIR,” the Court said while dictating the order.

Sankaranarayanan clarified that he was not seeking an absolute restraint on registration of FIRs, but suggested that the police could be required to obtain leave of the Court before registering further cases against Banerjee.

“I am not asking for a restraint on FIR, they can take leave from the Court,” he submitted. The Court responded that it would consider the suggestion, observing that the issue had not yet been decided in the order.

As Banerjee was stated to be abroad, the Court clarified that the police could take further steps after his return.

Case: Abhishek Banerjee v State of West Bengal