Allegations Against Dileep Prima Facie Suggest Intention To Harm Police Officers : Kerala High Court

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 he is facing trial as the chief conspirator.

"..the reading of the allegations as a whole, prima facie, suggests an intention to cause physical injuries to the police officers, including chopping off hands", the Court observed.

 While dismissing the plea, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A observed that the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be invoked only in the rarest of rare cases.

"... the petitioner could not make out a case, warranting interference at this stage. Even though the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is very wide; when it comes to the question of quashing an FIR, the same can be invoked only in the rarest of rare cases. I do not find that this is a case that falls in that category, and hence I do not find any circumstances warranting interference in this case."

In December 2021, film director Balachandrakumar made shocking disclosures against the actor and released audio recordings of people, allegedly including Dileep 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.

The Judge held 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.

"Even if what is revealed from the allegations is a doubtful case for making out the offences, in my view, at the stage of FIR, the benefit of the doubt should go in favour of the investigation and not to the accused. This is mainly because, an 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 noted that although the offences of criminal intimidation and abetment were not made in this case, the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was made out. It was clarified that criminal conspiracy was not attracted because of the utterances allegedly made by the petitioner, but because of the statement of the said Balachandra Kumar that accused have decided to cause harm to five police officers named therein.

The judgment stated although that it does not specifically state the commission of murder, the agreement is apparently for causing physical harm to the police officers.

"if there is a concrete agreement or meeting of mind by two or more persons to commit an offence, that by itself is an offence punishable under Section 120B IPC."

The Court added that the offence under Section 120B IPC is attracted in the instant case not based on the utterances made by the accused but on basis of circumstances indicating agreement to commit crime.

"In my view, in this case, the offence of Section 120B IPC is attracted not because of the utterances allegedly made by the petitioner, but because of the statement of the said Balachandra Kumar, which is also recorded in the complaint of 3rd respondent, that accused have decided to cause harm to five police officers named therein. It istrue that it does not specifically state the commission of any murder, but the agreement is apparently for causing physical harm to the police officers. The petitioner also reported having stated that the hands of Sri.Sudharsan, one of the police officers, would be chopped off. The specific contention of the learned DGP is that theaforesaid utterances are, in fact, the reflections of the agreement which they arrived at and intended to execute at a future point of time. It is true that the aforesaid information does not contain any details as to the nature of the agreement and the extent thereof or the further steps they have taken in pursuance to the same.

However, as I have already observed above, to consider the question as to whether a cognizable offence is attracted or not, what is relevant is the information furnished and not the materials produced. When the averments in the FIR and the related documents are considered in tha perspective, the aforesaid allegations may constitute a cognizable offence, i.e. the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence, as it refers to an agreement between the accused, for committing an offence. This is particularly because the contents of Annexures 9 and 10 reveal the formation of an agreement to cause harm to the police officers, and the reading of the allegations as a whole, prima facie, suggests an intention to cause physical injuries to the police officers, including chopping off hands. Therefore, it reveals an allegation of formation of an agreement to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than two years". 

In this case, although the FIR does not contain any substantiating materials indicating the nature of the agreement and the stage of execution of such agreement, it contains information as to the existence of an agreement to commit an offence punishable with more than two years. In such circumstances, it was held that no discrepancies or any legal infirmity can be attributed to the registration of the said FIR. The contention of the petitioner is that the registration of FIR is a violation of Section 154 Cr.PC is, therefore, liable to be rejected. 

Therefore, the Judge took the view that the lack of any preliminary inquiry by itself cannot be a reason to quash the proceedings.

"The purpose of preliminary inquiry is to allow the investigation officer to satisfy himself that an offence was indeed committed and the complaint was not false. It is true that the alleged conspiracy took place on 15.11.2017, and the crime was registered only in the year 2022. This was because of the reason that the revelation about the conspiracy was made only during the month of December 2021, and the knowledge of the same by the alleged victims was only at that time. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground."

The Court also did not accept the allegations of mala-fides on the part of the investigating officers.

"In this case, I have already found that there are sufficient allegations contained in Annexure-9 FIR and the documents based on which the same was registered, for attracting the offence of Section 120B IPC. Therefore, the question of malafides loses its significance by virtue of the same"

Moreover, it was held that the observations made by this Court in the order passed in the Bail Application cannot be relied upon to consider an application under Section 482 Cr.PC, even though the petitioner's contention that, at the moment, there are no conclusive materials substantiating the allegations in the FIR was accepted.

As already observed, what is relevant at this time is whether the allegations constitute an offence, which the Court already found against the petitioner. Therefore, it refused to quash the FIR.