Calcutta HC Refuses to Quash FIR Against Suvendu Adhikari, Bars Coercive Action
Calcutta HC Refuses to Quash FIR Against Suvendu Adhikari

The Calcutta High Court made a significant ruling on Thursday regarding a case involving opposition leader Suvendu Adhikari. The court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against the BJP leader. This FIR was lodged in Malda on January 2 over alleged derogatory remarks made against a former IPS officer.

Court's Decision and Directions

Justice Suvra Ghosh presided over the hearing and delivered the judgment. While the court did not dismiss the FIR, it issued clear instructions to the police authorities. The judge directed that no coercive action should be taken against Suvendu Adhikari until the next hearing of the matter.

Key Details of the Order

The next hearing has been scheduled for February 6. In the meantime, Justice Ghosh ordered the authorities to serve notice upon Adhikari. This notice requires him to appear virtually for the purpose of the investigation. The court's decision balances the need for legal proceedings with protections for the accused during the interim period.

The case stems from allegations that Adhikari made derogatory comments about a former Indian Police Service officer. The FIR was registered in Malda, and the matter has now moved to the Calcutta High Court for judicial review. The court's refusal to quash the FIR indicates that it finds merit in proceeding with the investigation, at least for now.

This development is closely watched in political circles, given Adhikari's prominent role as the leader of the opposition in West Bengal. The court's directive to avoid coercive action provides temporary relief to the BJP leader while the legal process unfolds. The virtual appearance order reflects modern judicial practices adapting to technological advancements.

Observers note that such cases often involve complex legal and political dimensions. The Calcutta High Court's handling of this matter will set precedents for similar situations in the future. All parties are expected to comply with the court's orders as the case progresses toward the February hearing.