On Tuesday, April 19, the Kerala High Court dismissed a plea by Malayalam actor Dileep, accused in a case of criminal conspiracy, to dismiss the FIR against him. Dileep’s plea was to either quash the FIR or transfer the case to the CBI. But the court dismissed both requests, and the state’s Crime Branch will now continue with the investigation. Besides the criminal conspiracy case, Dileep is the eighth accused in the sensational Kerala actor assault case of 2017. In fact, the conspiracy case – filed in January this year – had followed allegations that Dileep and five other men planned to murder five police officers who investigated the actor assault case. The allegations rose with a series of audio recordings and revelations made by director Balachandra Kumar towards the end of last year.
In the conspiracy case, Dileep and the other accused were booked under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 116 (abetment), 118 (concealing design to commit offence), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120 B (criminal conspiracy). Justice Ziyad Rahman AA of the Kerala High Court delivered the verdict, explaining each section and why the court cannot interfere by invoking the inherent powers under Section 483 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) to quash the FIR. The judge had found three of the four sections inapplicable, but the fourth one meriting an investigation. Here’s why.
The court did not find merit in the inclusion of IPC sections 116 and 118, which relate to abetment of offences including what is punishable with life imprisonment or death sentences. “In order to attract the offence of abetment, as defined under section 107, there must be some positive act or an illegal omission in pursuance of a conspiracy between the accused. On going through the contents of Annexure-9 (FIR), no such positive act or illegal omission is seen,” Justice Ziyad’s order said. However, he added that these sections may be included if section 120 B is attracted. Later in the judgment copy, 120 B is found applicable.
IPC Section 506, for criminal intimidation, is applicable only if the threat made by the accused is conveyed to or intended to be conveyed to the victim / complainant, with the purpose of causing an alarm in the latter’s mind. In Dileep’s case, the section was slapped since he allegedly made such threats sitting in his residence, watching videos of the police officials. However, the court found that the manner and circumstances of Dileep’s utterances would not amount to criminal intimidation, and it cannot be concluded that it was intended to be conveyed to the police officials. “The utterances were made only to the images of the alleged victims and not to them directly, and there was nothing to indicate that it was intended to be conveyed to the said victims,” the order said.
Citing several previous judgments, Judge Ziyad said that IPC Section 120 B (criminal conspiracy) is applicable if the allegations revealed an agreement to commit the offence. “In my view, the offence of section 120 B is attracted in this case not because of the utterances allegedly made by the petitioner, but because of the statement of Balachandra Kumar – which is also recorded in the complaint of 3rd respondent (DySP Baiju Paulose) – that accused have decided to cause harm to five police officers named therein.” Baiju Paulose, the complainant in the conspiracy case, is one of the investigating officials Dileep is alleged to have conspired to kill.
Among his reasons to quash the case, Dileep has alleged a close relationship between Baiju Paulose and Balachandra Kumar based on Whatsapp chats. He also alleged that the fifth respondent in his petition, IPS officer Sreejith, did not have a clean track record. However, the court brushed these off as mere allegations with no sufficient materials to “substantiate the same”.
Another contention was that the alleged conspiracy took place on November 15, 2017 and the FIR was registered only on January 9, 2022. But the judge pointed out that Balachandra Kumar made his revelations only in December 2021 and the alleged victims knew about it only then.
The petition had urged the court to use its inherent powers under CrPC Section 482 to quash the proceedings. However, the court said that “an interference in the investigation at this stage would foreclose all opportunities for the police to collect materials in support of the allegations”. The judge also added, “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.”
Citing several previous judgments including that of the Supreme Court, Judge Ziyad said that the “petitioner/accused does not have any right to seek a change of investigation agency”. Dileep’s petition claimed that since police officials are the alleged victims in the case, they may influence the investigation by other officials in the force. However, the judge brushed off the argument saying that such a contention is applicable only if police officials are among the accused. “Merely because the conspiracy alleged against the petitioner 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.”
Regarding the “tainted past” of the fifth respondent (IPS officer Sreejith) as alleged by the petitioner, the court said that it was not relevant in the case since it was the second respondent – the Superintendent of Crime Branch – who would be in charge of the investigation.