Kolkata (West Bengal) [India], July 30 : The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed police authorities not to take any coercive action against Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee in connection with three FIRs registered against him, till the next hearing on August 6.
The matter was heard by a single bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, which passed the interim direction in connection with FIRs registered at Bhawanipur Police Station (Case No. 121), Kalitala Police Station (Case No. 140) and Bishnupur Police Station (Case No. 668).
The court also directed the police authorities to provide a list containing details of all FIRs registered against Abhishek Banerjee as of date.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the state, argued that the petition was not maintainable and that blanket protection could not be granted to the petitioner.
"This kind of blanket protection cannot be given. You need to file one by one multiple petitions for multiple FIRs," Raju submitted.
Advocate Shankar Narayan, appearing for Abhishek Banerjee, argued that several complaints and FIRs had been filed against his client, with some of them being registered after the election results were declared.
He submitted that multiple complaints had been filed by individuals who had earlier contested elections against Abhishek Banerjee and alleged that some of the cases related to incidents that took place several years ago.
The counsel also referred to a case related to alleged siphoning of funds in the name of 'Sebashroy', stating that the project was undertaken by Abhishek Banerjee for elderly people in Diamond Harbour in his personal capacity and did not involve government funds.
During the hearing, the court questioned the delay in filing some of the complaints. Referring to one complaint, Justice Bhattacharya asked why there was a gap of 25 days between the alleged incident and the complaint.
The court also noted that one of the complainants had allegedly contested against Abhishek Banerjee twice and lost both times.
The state, however, opposed the plea for protection. SV Raju argued that where only complaints had been filed and no FIR registered, quashing proceedings could not be sought under law. He also submitted that if the petitioner sought relief from an FIR, the appropriate remedy was to approach the court under Section 438.
The court observed that interim orders passed in other matters, including the case of BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari, could not be treated as binding precedent, though multiple FIRs had been considered in that matter.