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 ...

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

Hannah M Varghese

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Hannah M Varghese

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

Hannah M Varghese

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Hannah M Varghese

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers