Actor Dileep’s request to have an FIR against him quashed for allegedly plotting a conspiracy to murder the investigative officers in the actor’s sexual assault case was denied by the Kerala High Court on Tuesday.
In dismissing the petition, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “in my view, at the stage of FIR, the benefit of the doubt should go in favor of the investigation and not the accused,” even if what was revealed from the allegations was a doubtful case for making out the offenses. This is mostly due to the fact that interfering with the investigation at this point would prevent the police from gathering evidence to support the claims.
The materials substantiating the claims were to be obtained through the investigative procedure, which had to begin after the FIR was registered, according to the court. “When it comes to the subject of quashing an FIR, the same can be invoked only in the rarest of rare situations,” the court said, notwithstanding its broad powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. This does not appear to be a case that fits into that category.”
“The FIR does not contain any substantiating elements indicating the type of the agreement and the level of execution of such agreement,” the judge stated. It does, however, reveal the existence of an agreement to commit a crime punishable by more than two years in prison. In such situations, the registration of the stated FIR cannot be blamed for any inconsistencies or legal flaws.”
The judge stated that the court’s responsibility included not just ensuring that no innocent people were punished, but also ensuring that the true criminals were properly punished. As a result, a balance has to be established, and “I believe that in this case, an appropriate balancing may be achieved by allowing the investigation to proceed.”
The court, in rejecting the actor’s argument, stated that the absence of any preliminary inquiry could not be used as a cause to halt the proceedings. The court also stated that the case was filed only on the basis of the information obtained, but that some investigation was carried out prior to that.
Court’s Decision
The court dismissed the actor’s alternative plea for the investigation to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), stating that in the absence of any evidence indicating that the investigation officer was influenced at the request of his superior officers, order for the investigation to be transferred to another agency could not be made.
Examining the circumstances surrounding the crime’s registration, the court concluded that “There are signs of the authorities’ overzealousness. No intervention with the stated investigation can be made unless the same is determined to be tainted with mala fides “,
The judge went on to say that there were no “documents suggesting any ulterior motivation or mala fide on the side of the investigative agency” in this case. In these circumstances, the court saw no reason to grant the request for the inquiry to be transferred to the CBI.
Court’s Observation
Just because the petitioner was accused of conspiring to commit a crime against police officers did not mean the police were interested in the case, the court reasoned, and it would jeopardize the officers’ neutral standing.
We hope that this article helped you in some way or another! For more such information, follow us on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, or simply subscribe to our newsletter.
