[Dileep case] Police over-zealous but no ulterior motive or malafides: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday observed that the Crime Branch Police Officers investigating Malayalam cine actor Dileep did not seem to have any ulterior motives warranting transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) [P Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v State of Kerala & Ors.].Justice Ziyad Rahman AA made the observations while dismissing a plea moved by the actor to quash the first information report (FIR) registered against him for allegedly conspiring to murder police officers investigating the 2017 actress assault case in which he stands accused. The Court also declined Dileep's alternative prayer to transfer the investigation in the case to the CBI as it noted that even though the investigating officers may have been a bit over-zealous, the materials on record do not reveal any malafides on their part. "Concerning the registration of crime against the petitioner based on an incident which has occurred on 15.11.2017, possibly there may be some abnormality. On scrutinizing the circumstances under which registration of the crime is made, traces of over-zealousness on the part of the authorities concerned can be found. However, 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," the order stated..Further, the Court opined that the mere fact that the alleged crime is against police officers, cannot lead to the conclusion that the police can't adopt a neutral approach."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," the Court said. .The Court also opined that there is no material to substantiate the allegations against the investigating agency and therefore, an order for transferring the investigation to another agency cannot be made. .In 2017, a popular actress was abducted and sexually assaulted in a moving vehicle pursuant to a conspiracy, allegedly hatched by Dileep. Being an 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, leveling allegations of conspiring to kill the investigating officers probing the actress assault case. Subsequently, the Crime Branch of the State Police registered a fresh FIR against Dileep and five others for offences punishable under Sections 116 (offering bribe to public servant), 118 (concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.In February, Dileep and the others were granted anticipatory bail in the matter, following which he approached the court once again to quash the FIR or to transfer the investigation to the CBI..Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, representing Dileep, argued for transferring the investigation on the ground that the police officers are interested parties with some among them harbouring grudge against Dileep. He also pointed out that the crime was registered in the year 2022 regarding a criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched in November 2017 and that there was no evidence of any further steps being taken in pursuance of such alleged criminal conspiracy.These allegations were vehemently opposed by the prosecution led by Director General of Prosecution, Senior Advocate TA Shaji..Before going into the merits the contentions of the petitioner, the Court considered the maintainability of the relief sought regarding transfer of investigation to CBI in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. The Court opined that it can invoke its powers under said provision only in the rarest of rare cases, under which category, the instant case would not fall. .The Court then considered the specific question as to whether the investigating agency can be changed at the behest of the accused.Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Romila Thapar & Ors. v Union of India & Ors. and Arnab Ranjan Goswami v Union of India & Ors., the court found that the petitioner/accused does not have any right to seek a change of investigation agency. The Court also considered the circumstances under which transfer of investigation can be ordered by the High Court and opined that the present case does not warrant interference by the Court..[Read Judgment]