BREAKING| Kerala High Court Dismisses Dileep's Plea To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case
The Court noted that although the police were over-zealous in the matter, no ulterior motive could be traced.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea moved by Dileep to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator.Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A opined that even if what is revealed from the allegations is a doubtful...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea moved by Dileep to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A opined that even if what is revealed from the allegations is a doubtful case for making out the offences at the stage of FIR, the benefit of the doubt should go in favour of the investigation and not to the accused because interference in the investigation at this stage would foreclose all opportunities for the police to collect materials in support of the allegations.
"In my view, the duty of the court is not confined to seeing that no innocent person is punished but also to ensuring that proper punishment is granted to the real culprits. Therefore a balance has to be struck, and I find that a proper balancing can be made in this case, by allowing the investigation to continue."
The Court also added that the lack of any preliminary inquiry by itself cannot be a reason to quash the proceedings while holding that offences of abetment and criminal intimidation have not been made out in the case. Nevertheless, offence under 120B (criminal conspiracy) was found to have been made out.
However, it was clarified that the findings and observations herein were only to ascertain whether the petitioner has made out a case for invocation of powers of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC at this stage and that none of the findings shall preclude him from raising his contentions at appropriate stages and invoking his remedies for challenging the final report filed against him in this case.
Transfer To CBI:
Regarding Dileep's alternative prayer seeking the case to be transferred to the CBI, the Judge noted that merely because the conspiracy alleged against him is to commit a crime against the police officers, it cannot be concluded that the police are interested in the matter, and it would affect the neutral status of the police.
"...in the absence of any material indicating influence being thrust upon him at the instance of such superior officers, an order for transferring the investigation to another agency cannot be made."
Similarly, regarding the registration of crime against the petitioner based on an incident that occurred in 2017, the Court noted that although traces of over-zealousness on the part of the authorities can be found, unless the same is found to be tainted with malafides, no interference can be made at the said investigation.
"In this case, I could not find any materials revealing any ulterior motive or malafide on the part of the investigating agency. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to allow the prayer sought for the transfer of investigation in this case."
Background:
In 2017, a popular actress was abducted and raped in a moving vehicle pursuant to a conspiracy, allegedly schemed by Dileep. Being the 8th accused in the case, he is now undergoing trial before the CBI Special Judge. The case made headlines once again in 2022 when film director Balachandrakumar made shocking disclosures against the actor bringing out new allegations against him.
He had released audio recordings of people, allegedly including Dileep attempting to sabotage the 2017 case and planning to endanger the lives of the officials. Following this, the trial court (which handles the 2017 actor rape case) had recorded a confidential statement from the director.
Consequently, Dileep and five men were booked under Sections 116 (abetment), 118 (concealing design to commit offence), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) r/w Section 34 (common intention) of IPC. The new case was filed under non-bailable sections.
In his plea, actor Dileep accused the filing of the impugned FIR as a vindictive, ill-motivated, pre-determined and malafide act executed with oblique motives.
According to the actor, this FIR was registered merely to fabricate evidence in the 2017 actor abduction and rape trial which is going on before the Additional Special Sessions Judge. It was also contended that the FIR was registered in violation of provisions of Section 154 of CrPC (information in cognizable cases) since there is a total absence of any allegation or material to attract the offences alleged in the FIR.
Dileep has further argued that the Investigating Officer has created false, unsigned statements of film director Balachandrakumar to wreak his personal vendetta and on that basis, he himself lodged a false complaint in the form of a letter to get the FIR registered.
In such circumstances, the petitioner has sought to quash the FIR and proceedings pursuant to the same on the ground that it was registered in violation of law, the initiation of criminal proceeding being manifestly attended with malafides and instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and also on the ground that the allegations even if accepted in toto do not constitute ingredients of any of the offences alleged.
Apprehending arrest in this case, Dileep, his brother P. Sivakumar and his brother-in-law T.N.Suraj had approached the High Court praying for anticipatory bail. Finding that there was no prima facie material to suggest that the accused had committed criminal conspiracy to target the investigating officers, a Single Judge had granted pre-arrest bail in the matter.
Senior Advocate Siddarth Agarwal appearing for Dileep had concluded his arguments in the case on March 30. DGP T.A Shaji appearing on behalf of the Prosecution was heard on March 31 after which the Court reserved its verdict.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 184