Kerala High Court
P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2022
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 29TH CHAITHRA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 1106 OF 2022
[CRIME NO.6/2022 OF CRIME BRANCH, ERNAKULAM]
PETITIONER/S:
P. GOPALAKRISHNAN @ DILEEP
AGED 53 YEARS
PADMASAROVARAM, KOTTARAKADAVIL ROAD,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 101.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SIDDHARTH AGGARWAL, SR.COUNSEL
THOMAS T.VARGHESE
NITYA R.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SUJESH MENON V.B.
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
V.T.LITHA
K.R.MONISHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CRIME BRANCH, KOCHI 683 104., PIN - 683104
3 BAIJU POULOSE
DY.SP, CRIME BRANCH, POLICE CLUB,
ALUVA 683101.
4 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
5 S. SREEJITH IPS
ADDL. DGP, CRIME BRANCH
POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.
Crl.M.C.No.1106 of 2022 2
6 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110 001.
7 THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI -110 003.
8 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
NEW DELHI- 110 003.
9 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
KOCHI UNIT, KOCHI 682 017.
R1 TO R5 BY SRI.T.A.SHAJI, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
PROSECUTION,
SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SHRI.SAJJU.S., SENIOR G.P.
FOR R6 TO R9 SRI.MANU S., ASG OF INDIA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.03.2022, THE COURT ON 19.04.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.1106 of 2022 3
ORDER
The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime
No.6/2022 of Crime Branch Police Station,
(hereinafter referred to as Crime No.6/2022). This
Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further
proceedings pursuant to the FIR registered in the
said case, which is produced as Annexure-9. The
said crime is registered against him and four
others, alleging offences punishable under
Sections 506, 116, 118, 120B r/w. Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The allegation against the petitioner and
other accused is that on 15.11.2017, they
threatened and hatched a criminal conspiracy to do
away with Smt.B.Sandhya, the present Director-
General of Police (Fire & Rescue), Sri. A.V.
George, present Inspector General of Police,
Sri.Sudharsan and Sri. Sojan, both presently working
as Superintendent of Police and the 3rd respondent in
this Crl.M.C, who is a Deputy Superintendent
of Police (Crime Branch). The alleged motive of
the petitioner and other accused is that, in an
earlier criminal prosecution, the investigation
was conducted by a Special Investigation Team
consisting of the above persons, and the
petitioner was implicated as one of the accused.
3. Before going to the facts of Crime
No.6/2022, which is the subject matter of this
case, it is necessary to go into the facts which
led to the registration of that previous crime, as
it has some intrinsic connection with this case.
The aforesaid crime is numbered as 297/2017 of
Nedumbasserry Police Station. The trial of the
same is now pending as S.C.No.118/2018 before the
Additional Special Judge (SPE/CBI Court-III),
Ernakulam. The aforesaid case is a prequel to the
present case. The circumstances under which the
aforementioned case was registered are as follows:
On 17.02.2017, a well-known film actress in
the Malayalam film industry was subjected to
sexual assaults and verbal threats in a moving
vehicle. The aforesaid sexual assaults were
captured on a camera by the assailants with the
intention to blackmail her. In connection with the
said incident, F.I.R. No.297/2017 was registered
by Nedumbassery Police Station for the offence
punishable under Section 120B, 342, 366, 376D,
506(1), 201, 212 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
After completing the investigation thereon,
Annexure-I final report was submitted by the
Police on 18.05.2017 against seven accused
persons. The aforesaid final report was submitted
based on an investigation conducted by the Special
Team under the direct supervision of Smt.B.
Sandhya, the then Additional Director General of
Police (South Zone) and also consisted of 6
officers of the rank of DySP and many officers
below that rank, including the 3rd respondent.
Subsequently, based on the additional evidence
gathered by the Special Investigation Team, the
petitioner herein was implicated as the 8th
accused, and a supplementary final report was
submitted in this regard on 22.11.2017. The
allegation against the petitioner was that the act
of sexual assault was committed by the other
accused on the instructions given by the
petitioner herein, who was nursing some personal
grudge against the victim because, the petitioner
believed that, it was the victim who was
instrumental for the termination of his marriage
with his first wife. The petitioner was allegedly
under the impression that the victim disclosed to
the first wife of the petitioner about the
relationship of the petitioner with another
person. In connection with the investigation of
the aforesaid case, the petitioner was arrested
and detained in custody for a period of 84 days.
The said case is pending trial, and all the
witnesses cited by the prosecution therein except
the investigation officer, who is the 3rd
respondent herein, were examined. The examination
of 3rd respondent is now to take place.
4. While so, on 25.12.2021, one Balachandra
Kumar, who is one of the Directors of the
Malayalam Film Industry, made certain revelations
through a Malayalam News channel with regard to
certain acts of the petitioner in connection with
the subject matter of Crime No.297/2017 and also
revealed some information about certain
discussions made by the petitioner and other
persons indicating a criminal conspiracy against
the investigation team which conducted the
investigation in Crime No.297/2017. The aforesaid
revelations were made on the strength of certain
audio clips, which contained certain conversations
of the petitioner and the other accused in this
case. The said Balachandra Kumar also forwarded a
complaint to the Nedumbassery Police Station, the
contents of which were the same as in another
complaint he originally submitted before the
Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State almost one
month ago. In the said complaint, he requested to
give protection to him, as he apprehended a threat
from the petitioner herein since the petitioner is
aware of the materials available with him, which
could be used as evidence for the complicity of
the petitioner in Crime No.297/2017. The aforesaid
complaint was forwarded to the 3rd respondent
herein, as per the orders of the District Police
Chief, since the 3rd respondent was the
Investigation Officer of Crime No.297/2017, and
the revelation made by the said Balachandra Kumar
contained information that is intrinsically
connected with criminal acts which are the subject
matter of the aforesaid crime. Thereafter, based
on such revelations, a report for further
investigation in Crime No.297/2017, which is
pending as S.C.118/2018, was submitted before the
trial court by the 3rd respondent herein. Annexure-
6 is the aforesaid report.
5. As part of further investigation,
statements of Sri. Balachandra Kumar was recorded
on 01.01.2022 and 03.01.2022, which are Annexures
11 and 12 in this Crl.M.C. Based on the same, the
3rd respondent herein submitted a complaint to the
Additional Director General of Police (ADGP),
Crime Branch Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram,
highlighting the aforesaid aspects. In the said
complaint, it was mentioned that the statement of
the said Balachandra Kumar and the audio clips
furnished by him indicate certain acts amount to
criminal conspiracy and criminal intimidation on
the part of the petitioner and four others for
doing away with Smt.B.Sandhya, DGP, Sri.
A.V.George, Inspector General of Police, Sri.
K.S.Sudharsan, Superintendent of Police, Sri.M.J.
Sojan, Superintendent of Police and the 3rd
respondent herein. The aforesaid complaint was
forwarded by the ADGP Crime Branch to the
Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch-Ernakulam)
for registration of the crime and to conduct an
investigation thereon. Annexure-10 is the
aforesaid complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent
herein with the endorsement of the ADGP in this
regard. Based on the same, Annexure-9 F.I.R. was
registered with Crime No.6/2022 on 9.1.2022 for
the offences punishable under Sections 116, 118,
120B, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. Subsequently, on 14.1.2022, a further report
was submitted by the Police by which Section 120B
of Section 302 was also incorporated. The
investigation by the 2nd respondent is now in
progress in Annexure-9 F.I.R. The other accused in
the aforesaid crime are Sri. Anoop, the brother of
the petitioner herein, Sri.T.N.Suraj, Appu, Byju
B.R. (Baiju Chengamanad) and one identifiable
person (not named).
6. All the named accused persons had earlier
moved applications for Anticipatory Bail before
this Court, and as per Annexure-18 order, all of
them were granted pre-arrest bail.
7. This Criminal M.C. is filed in such
circumstances praying for quashing all further
proceedings pursuant to Annexure-9 F.I.R. The
specific case put forward by the petitioner is
that the registration of the F.I.R. violated
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.PC) as the same does not disclose any
cognizable offence. It was contended that, even if
the entire allegations in the F.I.R. are taken for
their face value, no offences are made out. It was
also the case of the petitioner that the
registration of the case itself was as part of a
larger conspiracy at the instance of the 3rd and 5th
respondents to create false evidence against the
petitioner in Crime No. 297/2017 to see that the
petitioner is punished. With the said intention, a
false story, with the connivance of the said
Balachandra Kumar, was created by them, and
registration of this crime is part of the said
design. In this Crl.M.C., an alternate prayer was
also sought to the effect that, if this Court is
not inclined to quash the FIR, the investigation
may be handed over to a specialized agency,
namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation
(C.B.I.), which is the 8th respondent herein. The
said prayer is sought mainly on the ground that,
according to the petitioner, the investigation is
proceeding in a biased manner. According to the
petitioner, since the allegation itself is in
respect of a threat against Senior Police Officers
who are at the helm of the affairs of the Home
Department, the investigation is likely to be
influenced by those superior officers. To
substantiate the biased nature of the
investigation and the alleged motive on the part
of the 3rd respondent in seeing the accused
implicated in the offence, a specific averment was
made by the petitioner to the effect that, prior
to the registration of Annexure-9 F.I.R., the 3rd
respondent had personally met Sri. Balachandra
Kumar, the person who made revelations in this
case and held discussions with him on three
occasions, i.e. on 2.10.2021, 6.11.2021 and
27.12.2021. It is also pointed out that,
immediately after a report for further
investigation in Crime No.297/2017 was submitted,
the Special Investigation Team was re-constituted
by including the 5th respondent herein, who is the
Additional Director General of Police (Crime
Branch). According to the petitioner, the said
Balachandra Kumar and the 5th respondent have close
acquaintance. To substantiate the same, certain
Whatsapp communications between the petitioner and
one Nadirsha, a close friend of the petitioner
herein, are relied on, which are produced as
Annexure-17 in this Crl.M.C. The contents of
Annexure-17 are to the effect that the said
Balachandra Kumar had made a recommendation to the
said Nadhirshah, a Director of Malayalam movies,
to give a chance to a young singer who is closely
related to the 5th respondent. It is also pointed
out that Annexure-17 Whatsapp messages
specifically refer to the name of the 5th
respondent and also reveal the relationship which
the said Balachandra Kumar has, with the family of
the person recommended. Apart from the above,
certain documents in the form of Annexure-15
series were also relied on to indicate certain
disciplinary proceedings and adverse remarks
against the 5th respondent in connection with some
other cases. On the strength of the above
materials, it was contended by the petitioner that
the investigation which is being conducted by the
2nd respondent, who is directly subordinate to the
5th respondent and the some of the victims in the
crime, is likely to be influenced by them. Hence,
no proper investigation can be expected from the
2nd respondent in such circumstances. The alternate
prayer for changing the investigation agency was
sought in such circumstances.
8. A statement was submitted by the 2nd
respondent in response to the averments contained
in the Crl.M.C. The allegations and averments made
by the petitioner in the Crl.M.C. were
specifically denied. It was alleged that, the
filing of Crl.M.C is made by making false
allegations, with the intention to interfere with
the ongoing investigation. The circumstances under
which Annexure-9 FIR happened to be registered by
the Crime Branch were explicitly explained
by the 2nd respondent. Initially, the said
Balachandra Kumar had submitted a complaint on
25.11.2021 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala
seeking protection of life from the petitioner and
his men. The said complaint revealed certain
incriminating materials against the petitioner
herein in connection with the subject matter of
Crime No.297/2017. As the aforesaid complaint did
not yield any response, the said Balachandra Kumar
made the revelations through a visual media on
25.12.2021, wherein he stated about the evidence
available with him revealing the role played by
the petitioner in commission of the crime which is
the subject matter of Crime No.297/2017 and also
the petitioner's relationship with the 1st accused
in the said crime. The link of the said program
was forwarded to him by the survivor of Crime
No.297/2017. Later a complaint was submitted by
the said Balachandra Kumar to the Station House
Officer, Nedumbassery Police Station, on
28.12.2021, which happened to be forwarded to 3rd
respondent. Based on the said revelation, a report
for further investigation in Crime No.297/2017 was
submitted by the 3rd respondent, and further
investigation was commenced. During the said
investigation, statements of the said Balachandra
Kumar were recorded from 1.1.2022 and 3.1.2022. He
also handed over the audio clips to the Police.
From the complaint and the statements of the said
Balachandra Kumar, a criminal conspiracy on the
part of the petitioner and the other accused to
cause harm to the members of the Special
Investigation Team which investigated Crime
No.297/2017 came to light. Accordingly, Annexure-
10 report/complaint was submitted by the 3rd
respondent to ADGP (Crimes), the 5th respondent
herein, seeking necessary action. Since the
contents of Annexure-10 revealed the commission of
cognizable offences, the ADGP (Crimes) directed
the registration of crime by the Crime Branch
Police Station. The crime was registered in such
circumstances. It was pointed out that no
circumstances exist warranting interference in
Annexure-9 FIR as, according to the 2nd respondent,
cognizable offences are made out from the
allegations contained therein. The investigation
is in progress, and it is being conducted in an
unbiased manner without any external influence. It
was also pointed out that the petitioner had
approached this Court with unclean hands. The
contention above was put forward by the 2nd
respondent by highlighting certain acts on the
part of the petitioner and the other accused by
which an attempt was made by them to delete the
contents of mobile phones which were being used by
the accused during the relevant period. It was
further stated that on 29.1.2022, an order was
passed by this Court in B.A.Nos. 248, 288 and 300
of 2022, which were submitted by the accused in
this case, wherein this Court directed the accused
to produce seven mobile phones used by them in a
sealed box before the Registrar General of this
Court by 10.15 a.m. on 31.1.2022. Later, they
produced six phones, and the said phones were
subjected to Forensic examination. Annexure R2(e)
is the Forensic Examination Report of the mobile
phones (6 in numbers) surrendered by the accused,
wherein it was found that certain data were
deleted. It was pointed out that most of the
interference of the data in some of the phones has
taken place during the period after passing the
order dated 29.1.2022 of this Court and before
surrendering of the phones in compliance with the
said order. On the strength of the above, it is
highlighted that it was a conscious attempt on the
part of the accused to tamper with the evidence
and hence he cannot be treated as a person who
came to this Court with clean hands. With regard
to the allegations raised against the 5th
respondent on the basis of Annexure-15 series
orders/proceedings, it was pointed out that none
of the same has any relevance to the present
dispute. It was also highlighted that all those
proceedings were closed without any serious
consequences against the 5th respondent. The 2nd
respondent also opposed the prayer for transfer of
investigation to the 8th respondent by
highlighting that no circumstances are in
existence warranting such transfer.
9. A reply was also submitted by the
petitioner in response to the aforesaid statement,
denying the averments contained therein. The
allegations of tampering with the data in the
mobile phones were also specifically denied, and
the circumstances by which the aforesaid phones
were entrusted to M/s.Lab Systems India Pvt. Ltd.
for restoration of certain data was also
explained.
10. Heard Sri. Siddharth Aggarwal, the learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Philip T.Varghese,
the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.
T.A. Shaji, the learned Senior Counsel and
Director General of Prosecution (DGP), assisted by
Sri.P.Narayanan, the Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State and Sri.Manu S. the Assistant
Solicitor General of India for CBI.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in
the Crl.M.C with the support of several judicial
precedents in this regard. The learned D.G.P.
replied to the said submission in detail and also
cited many decisions in his support. I shall deal
with said contentions and refer to the relevant
decisions cited at the appropriate stages of the
order.
12. The first contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
registration of Annexure-9 FIR violates Section
154 of the Cr.P.C. According to him, Annexure-9
does not make out any cognizable offences, and in
the absence of the same, the registration of FIR
was illegal. According to him, Annexure-9 FIR was
registered on 9.1.2022 for the offences punishable
under Sections 116, 118, 120B, and 506 read with
Section 34 of the IPC. Subsequently, on 14.1.2022,
a report was submitted incorporating the offence
of Section 120B of 302 IPC. The specific case of
the petitioner is that none of the aforesaid
offences is attracted from the averments contained
in Annexure-9.
13. Before going into the facts of the case,
let us examine the requirements specified in
Section 154 of Cr.PC for registering an F.I.R.
Section 154(1) reads as follows:
"Section 154(1) in The Code Of Criminal
Procedure, 1973:
(1) Every information relating to the commission
of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an
officer in charge of a police station, shall be
reduced to writing by him or under his
direction, and be read over to the informant;
and every such information, whether given in
writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid,
shall be signed by the person giving it, and the
substance thereof shall be entered in a book to
be kept by such officer in such form as the
State Government may prescribe in this behalf."
14. The learned Senior Counsel relies upon
State of West Bengal and Others v. Sanchaita
Investments and Others [(1982)1 SCC 561], wherein
in paragraph 21 it was observed as follows:
"21. The position which emerges from these
decisions and the other decisions which are
discussed by Brother A. N. Sen is that the
condition precedent to the commencement of
investigation under S.157 of the Code is that
the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a
cognizable offence has been committed, It is
wrong to suppose that the police have an
unfettered discretion to commence investigation
under S.157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry
is conditioned by the existence of reason to
suspect the commission, of a cognizable offence
and they cannot, reasonably have reason so to
suspect unless the F.I.R. prima facie discloses
the commission of offence. If that condition is
satisfied, the investigation must go on, and
the rule in Khwaja Nazir Ahmed will apply. The
Court has then no power to stop the
investigation, for to do so would be to trench
upon the lawful power of the police to
investigate into cognizable offences. On the
other hand, if the F.I.R. does not disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence, the Court
would be justified in quashing the
investigation on the basis of the information
as laid or received."
15. It is true that as per the stipulations
contained in Section 154 of the Cr.PC, when the
information provided to the Police reveals the
commission of a cognizable offence, it should be
reduced into writing, and the investigation shall
be commenced based on the same. Thus, the
essential requirement for registration of an FIR
and initiation of investigation is the disclosure
of 'information' which indicates the commission of
a cognizable offence. The crucial aspect to be
noticed in this regard is that what is relevant
for the purpose of Section 154 is not the
materials available on record at the time of
registration of the FIR, but what is relevant is
the 'information' which is the exact word used in
Section 154 Cr.PC. Since the purpose of Section
154 is the commencement of an investigation based
on 'information', it is not necessary to insist
upon materials disclosing the commission of a
cognizable offence at the relevant time. This is
mainly because, it is a well settled position of
law that the F.I.R is not an encyclopedia that
should contain all the details of the crime. The
materials in support of the information/allegation
contained in the F.I.R could be revealed only
during the investigation. Therefore, for finding
out whether an F.I.R discloses a cognizable
offence, what is relevant for consideration is
only the 'information' furnished by the 1st
informant.
16. The contents of Annexure-9 FIR are to be
considered from that perspective. The relevant
portion of Annexure-9 is extracted for easy
reference.
"ഈ സംഗതിക്ക് 1-ആം പ്രതിയെ യെ ടുമ്പാശ്ശേ രി പി .സ്.ക്രൈ ം .297 / 2017
മ്പർ ശ്ശേ!സിയെ" 8-ആം മ്പർ പ്രതി ാക്കി അറസ്റ്റ് യെ'യ്ത് ി മ ടപടി!ൾക്ക്
വിശ്ശേ- മാക്കി തിയെ. വിശ്ശേരാ-ത്തിൽ ടി ശ്ശേ!സിൽ അശ്ശേ 1ഷണ ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥ ാ
ആവ"ാതിക്കാരയെ യും ശ്ശേ!സിൽ ശ്ശേമൽശ്ശേ ാട്ടം വഹിച്ച മറ്റ് ശ്ശേമലുശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥയെരയും
അപാ യെ>ടുത്തണയെമന്നുള്ള ഉശ്ശേAശശ്ശേത്താടും !രുതശ്ശേ"ാടും കൂടി 1 മുതൽ 6 വയെര
പ്രതി!ൾ ശ്ശേ'ർന്ന് 15.11.2017-ആം തീ തി ആലുവ യെ!ാട്ടാരക്കടവിലുള്ള 1-ആം
പ്രതിയുയെട പത്മാസശ്ശേരാവരം വീട്ടിയെ" ഹാളിൽ വച്ച് കുറ്റ!രമാ ഗൂഢാശ്ശേ"ാ'
ടത്തി ശ്ശേമൽ മ്പർ ശ്ശേ!സിൽ മാ-6മങ്ങശ്ശേളാട് സംസാരിക്കുന്ന S.P.
A.V.ശ്ശേUാർUിയെ. വീഡിശ്ശേ ാ യൂട്യൂബിൽ ഫ്രീസ് യെ'യ്ത് വച്ച് ദൃശ6ങ്ങളിൽ S.P.
A.V.ശ്ശേUാർUി ് ശ്ശേ യെര 1-ആം പ്രതി ക്രൈ! ചൂണ്ടി " ിങ്ങൾ അഞ്ച് ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥർ
അനുഭവിക്കാൻ ശ്ശേപാവു! ാണ്.... ശ്ശേസാUൻ, സു5ർശൻ, സന്ധ6, ക്രൈബജു
പൗശ്ശേ"ാസ്, പിയെന്ന ീ , പിയെന്ന ഇതിൽ എയെ. ശ്ശേ5ഹത്ത് ക്രൈ!വച്ച സു5ർശയെ.
ക്രൈ! യെവട്ടണം" എന്ന് 1-ആം പ്രതി പറയുന്നതും "ക്രൈബജു പൗശ്ശേ"ാസിയെ ായെള
ശ്ശേപാകുശ്ശേമ്പാൾ ഏയെതങ്കിലും വല്ല ട്രശ്ശേക്കാ അയെല്ലങ്കിൽ വല്ല ശ്ശേ"ാറിശ്ശേ ാ വന്നു
ക്രൈസഡിൽ ഇടിച്ചാൽ....ഒന്നരശ്ശേക്കാടി ശ്ശേ ാശ്ശേക്കണ്ടിവരും അയെല്ല " എന്ന് 3-ആം
പ്രതി പറഞ്ഞും. 1 മുതൽ 6 വയെര പ്രതി!ൾ ഗൂഢാശ്ശേ"ാ' ടത്തി ഭീഷണി
മുഴക്കുന്നതും ബാ"'ന്ദ്രകുമാർ എന്ന ാൾ നേ രിട്ട് കാണാനും നേകൾക്കാനും ഇടയാക്കി
പ്രതികൾ കുറ്റം ചെ യ്തു എന്ന കാര്യത്തി ് ചെ ടുമ്പാനേ രി പി.സ് . ക്രൈ"ം 297 /2017 മ്പർ
നേകസിചെ$ പു രനേ &ഷണ ഭാഗമായി ശ്രീ. ബാ$ ന്ദ്ര കുമാർ എന്ന ാൾ അശ്ശേ 1ഷണ
ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥ ് ൽ!ി യെമാഴിയുയെടയും ശബ്ദശ്ശേരഖ!ളുയെടയും അടിസ്ഥാ ത്തിൽ
ശ്ശേമൽ മ്പർ ശ്ശേ!സിയെ. അശ്ശേ 1ഷണ ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥ ാ ആവ"ാതിക്കാരൻ ADGP,
ക്രൈ ംബ്രാഞ്ച് മുമ്പായെ! ൽ!ി റിശ്ശേ>ാർട്ടിശ്ശേ{ൽ ബഹു : ADGP ക്രൈ ം
ബ്രാഞ്ചിയെ. ഉത്തരവ് മ്പർ Ptn-649/2022/CB Dated 09.01.2022 പ്ര!ാരം
Cr.No.06/2022U/S 116, 118, 120B, 506 and 34 IPC പ്ര!ാരം ഈ ശ്ശേ!സ്
രUിസ്റ്റർ യെ'യ്ത് അശ്ശേ 1ഷണത്തി ാ ി Cr.No.06/CB/EKM/D/2022 എന്ന
മ്പറാ ി Sri.Mohanachandran Nair M.P., Supdt. Of Police, CB, Ernakulam
Unit-നു ൽകുന്നു. അസ്സൽ Report (Sheet No.1 to 3), ടി റിശ്ശേ>ാർട്ടിൽ ഉള്ളടക്കം
യെ'യ്തിട്ടുള്ള യെ ടുമ്പാശ്ശേ രി പി .സ്.ക്രൈ ം 297/2017 മ്പർ ശ്ശേ!സിയെ"
പു രശ്ശേ 1ഷണഭാഗമാ ി ശ്ശേരഖയെ>ടുത്തി പി.ബാ"'ന്ദ്രകുമാർ എന്ന ാളുയെട
യെമാഴി പ!ർപ്പു!ൾ (Sheet No.1 to 7), ടി റിശ്ശേ>ാർട്ടിൽ ഉള്ളടക്കം യെ'യ്തിട്ടുള്ള ശ്ശേമൽ
മ്പർ ശ്ശേ!സിൽ ത ാറാക്കി സീ ഷർ മഹസ്സറിയെ. പ!ർ>് (Sheet No.1 to 4) ,
അസ്സൽ FIR, ADGP ക്രൈ ം ബ്രാഞ്ചിയെ. ഉത്തരവിയെ. പ!ർ>് എന്നിവ
ബഹു:ശ്ശേ!ാടതിക്കും, FIR, റിശ്ശേ>ാർട്ട്, യെമാഴി, സീഷർ മഹസ്സർ, ഉത്തരവ്
എന്നിവയുയെട പ!ർപ്പു!ളും ടി റിശ്ശേ>ാർട്ടിശ്ശേ ായെടാ>ം ഹാUരാക്കി യെപൻക്രൈ വ് -
ഉം അശ്ശേ 1ഷണർത്ഥം അശ്ശേ 1ഷണ ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥനും ൽകുന്നു."
The aforesaid information is recorded in the F.I.R
based on Annexure-10 complaint submitted by the 3rd
respondent herein. The relevant portion of
Annexure-10 is extracted hereunder:
"ഈ പരാതി വിശ5മാ ി പരിശ്ശേശാ-ിച്ചതിൽ എ ിക്ക് ഈ ശ്ശേ!സ്
തുടരശ്ശേ 1ഷിശ്ശേക്കണ്ടതായെണന്ന് ഉത്തമ ശ്ശേബാ-6ം വരി! ാൽ യെസക്ഷൻ
173(8) Cr.P.C. പ്ര!ാരം റിശ്ശേ>ാർട്ട് ത ാറാക്കി യെ¥ഷ6ൽ പബ്ലി!്
ശ്ശേപ്രാസി!്യൂട്ടർ മുഖാന്തിരം 29.12.2021 തീ തി വി'ാരണ ശ്ശേ!ാടതി ിൽ
സമർ>ിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതും തുടർന്ന് ഈ ശ്ശേ!സിയെ. തുടരശ്ശേ 1ഷണം ഞാൻ
ടത്തിവരി!യുമാണ്. ആ തിയെ. ഭാഗമാ ി 01.01.2022, 03.01.2022
തീ തി!ളിൽ ശ്രീ.ബാ"'ന്ദ്രകുമാർ എന്ന സാക്ഷിയുയെട യെമാഴി!ൾ
ശ്ശേരഖയെ>ടുത്തി ിട്ടുള്ളതും 03.01.2022 തീ തി ടി ാൾ ഹാUരാക്കി തന്ന 24
ശബ്ദശ്ശേരഖ!ൾ അടങ്ങി യെപൻക്രൈ വ് ബന്തവസ്സിൽ
എടുത്തിട്ടുള്ളതുമാണ്. 5ി"ീപ് എന്ന് വിളിക്കുന്ന ശ്ശേഗാപാ"കൃഷ്ണൻ, ടി ായെ.
സശ്ശേഹാ5രൻ അനൂപ്, ടി ായെ. സശ്ശേഹാ5രീ ഭർത്താവാ സുരാU് ,
അനൂപിയെ. ഭാര6 സശ്ശേഹാ5രൻ അപ്പു , 5ി"ീപിയെ. സുഹൃത്ത് ക്രൈബജു
യെ'ങ്ങമ ാട്, സാക്ഷി ാ ബാ"'ന്ദ്രകുമാറി ് !ണ്ടാൽ തിരിച്ചറിയുയെമന്ന്
പറയുന്ന മയെറ്റാരാളും മറ്റും ശ്ശേ'ർന്ന് 15.11.2017 തീ തി 5ി"ീപ്
എന്ന് വിളിക്കുന്ന ശ്ശേഗാപാ"കൃഷ്ണ യെ. ആലുവ യെ!ാട്ടാരക്കടവിലുള്ള
പത്മസശ്ശേരാവരം എന്ന വീട്ടിയെ" ഹാളിൽ വച്ച് സൂ' ഒന്ന് പ്ര!ാരം
പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്ന ശ്ശേ!സിൽ ടി ായെ പ്രതി ശ്ശേ'ർത്ത് അറസ്റ്റ് യെ'യ്ത്
ി മ ടപടി!ൾക്ക് വിശ്ശേ- മാക്കി തിയെ. വിശ്ശേരാ-ത്തിൽ ടി ശ്ശേ!സിയെ.
അശ്ശേ 1ഷണത്തി ് ശ്ശേമൽശ്ശേ ാട്ടം വഹിച്ച ബഹു: ഫ ർ ശ്ശേഫാഴ്സ് ശ്ശേമ-ാവിയും
ഡി.Uി.പിയുമാ ശ്ശേഡാ.ബി.സന്ധ6 IPS (മുൻ ADGP സൗത്ത് ശ്ശേസാൺ),
ശ്ശേ!ാഴിശ്ശേക്കാട് !മ്മീഷണറും IGP യുമാ ശ്രീ A.V.ശ്ശേUാർU് IPS (മുൻ Uില്ലാ
ശ്ശേപാ"ീസ് ശ്ശേമ-ാവി എറണാകുളം റൂറൽ) തൃശൂർ ക്രൈ ം ബ്രാഞ്ച് S.P.ശ്രീ
K.S.സു5ർശൻ, എറണാകുളം ക്രൈ ം ബ്രാഞ്ച് യെസൻട്രൽ യൂണിറ്റ് II
SP ശ്രീ.M.J.ശ്ശേസാUൻ എന്നിവയെരയും ശ്ശേ!സിയെ. അശ്ശേ 1ഷണ
ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥ ാ എയെന്നയും അപാ യെ>ടുത്തുവാൻ കുറ്റ!രമാ
ഗൂഢാശ്ശേ"ാ' ടത്തി തായും അശ്ശേതക്കുറിച്ച് ശ്ശേമല്പറഞ്ഞ പത്മാസശ്ശേരാവരം
വീട്ടിൽ വച്ച് 'ർച്ച ടത്തി തായും എ ിക്ക് ശ്ശേബാ-6യെ>ട്ടിരുന്നു .
15.11.2017 തീ തി 5ി"ീപിയെ. പത്മാസശ്ശേരാവരം വീടിയെ. ഹാളിൽ വച്ച്
എറണാകുളം Uില്ലാ ശ്ശേപാ"ീസ് ശ്ശേമ-ാവി ആ ിരുന്ന ശ്രീ .A.V ശ്ശേUാർU് സാർ
ഈ ശ്ശേ!സിയെ പറ്റി മാ-6മങ്ങശ്ശേളാട് സംസാരിക്കുന്ന വീഡിശ്ശേ ാ യൂട്യൂബിൽ
ഫ്രീസ് യെ'യ്ത് വച്ച് ദൃശ6ങ്ങളിൽ !ണ്ട S.P ശ്ശേUാർU് സാറി ് ശ്ശേ യെര
5ി"ീപ് ക്രൈ! ചൂണ്ടി " ിങ്ങൾ അഞ്ച് ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥർ അനുഭവിക്കാൻ
ശ്ശേപാവു! ാണ്.... ശ്ശേസാUൻ, സു5ർശൻ, സന്ധ6, ക്രൈബജു പൗശ്ശേ"ാസ് ,
പിയെന്ന ീ , പിയെന്ന ഇതിൽ എയെ. ശ്ശേ5ഹത്ത് ക്രൈ!വച്ച സു5ര്ശയെ. ക്രൈ!
യെവട്ടണം" എന്ന് 5ി"ീപ് പറയുന്നതും ഗുണ്ടാ പണി ശ്ശേ ാക്കുന്നതിയെ യും മറ്റും
സംസാരിക്കുന്നതി ിട ിൽ "ക്രൈബജു പൗശ്ശേ"ാസിയെ ായെള ശ്ശേപാകുശ്ശേമ്പാൾ
ഏയെതങ്കിലും വല്ല ട്രശ്ശേക്കാ അയെല്ലങ്കിൽ വല്ല ശ്ശേ"ാറിശ്ശേ ാ വന്നു ക്രൈസഡിൽ
ഇടിച്ചാൽ ....ഒന്നരശ്ശേക്കാടി ശ്ശേ ാശ്ശേക്കണ്ടിവരും അയെല്ല " എന്ന് സുരാU്
പറയുന്നതും അതിയെ കുറിച്ചും മറ്റും അവർ തമ്മിൽ സംസാരിക്കുന്നതും ശ്ശേമൽ
പറഞ്ഞ ബാ"'ന്ദ്രകുമാർ ശ്ശേ രിട്ട് !ണ്ടുയെവന്നും ശ്ശേ!ട്ടുയെവന്നും ടി ാൾ
ൽ!ി യെമാഴി!ളിൽ ിന്നും ഹാUരാക്കി തന്ന ശബ്ദശ്ശേരഖ!ളിൽ ിന്നും
!യെണ്ടടുത്ത മറ്റ് ശ്ശേരഖ!ളിൽ ിന്നും വ6ക്തമാകുന്നുണ്ട് . പ്രതി!ൾ ശ്ശേമൽ
പറഞ്ഞ വി-ത്തിൽ ഗൂഢാശ്ശേ"ാ' ടത്തി തിയെ. അടിസ്ഥാ ത്തിൽ
ടി ാ{ാർ അശ്ശേ 1ഷണ സംഘത്തിയെ" ശ്ശേമല്പറഞ്ഞ ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥയെര
അപാ യെ>ടുത്താൻ ശ്രമിക്കുന്നതാ ി ഞാൻ വിശ1സിക്കുന്നു.
ഇക്കാര6ത്തിൽ പ്രതി!ൾയെക്കതിയെര ഉ'ിതമാ ി മ ടപടി!ൾ
സ1ീ!രിക്കണയെമന്ന് അശ്ശേപക്ഷിക്കുന്നു."
From the aforesaid documents, it is evident that
the basic information which the 3rd respondent
received was from the complaint submitted by the
said Balachandra Kumar and also from the
statements recorded by the 3rd respondent as part
of further investigation of the Crime No.297/2017.
Annexures-11 and 12 are the statements of the said
Balachandra Kumar recorded on 1.1.2022 and
3.1.2022, respectively. Even though most of the
contents of the same are related to the subject
matter of Crime No.297/2017, the aforesaid
statements also reveal certain aspects relating to
this case. The relevant portion of Annexure-11
statement is extracted for easy reference as
follows:
"ദി$ീപിചെ അറസ്റ്റ് ചെ യ്ത പഴയ വിഷ1ൽസ് യൂട്യൂബിൽ കാണുന്നതി ിടയിൽ
S.P എ.വി. നേ9ാർ9ിചെ: വിഡിനേയാ കണ്ട് "അഞ്ച് ഉനേദ്യാഗസ്ഥന്മാർ - ിങ്ങൾ
അനുഭവിക്കും" എന്ന് ദി$ീപ് പറഞ്ഞു. ഇതി ിടയിൽ ദി$ീപ് ഇടയ്ക്കിചെട അകത്ത്
നേപായി മ56പിക്കുന്നുണ്ടാ ിരുന്നു. അനേന്നരം അവിചെട ദി$ീപിചെ: ഒരു സുഹൃത്ത്
എത്തി. അയാളുചെട നേപര് എ ിക്കറി ില്ല. അയാളുചെട സംസാരത്തി ിടയിൽ
'ഇൻഷാ അള്ളാ' എന്ന് പറയുന്നത് നേകട്ടു. അയാൾ ഏനേതാ ഒരു മന്ത്രിയുയെട
അടുത്ത സുഹൃത്താചെണന്ന് അയാളുചെട സംസാരത്തിൽ ിന്നും എ ിക്ക്
വ6ക്തമാ ി. അശ്ശേ 1ഷണ സംഘത്തിചെ$ ഏനേതാ ഒരു ഉനേദ്യാഗസ്ഥചെ:നേയാ
മനേറ്റാ അനു9നുമായി അയാൾ സംസാരിച്ചുചെവന്നും അയാളവിചെട പറഞ്ഞു. "പൾസർ
സു ിയും സംഘവും പുറനേത്തക്കിറങ്ങിയാൽ അവർക്ക് പണി ചെകാടുക്കണചെമന്ന്
എല്ലാവരും നേ ർന്ന് ർച്ച ടത്തുകയും ചെ യ്തു. സാഗർ എന്ന സാക്ഷി വീണ്ടും ചെമാഴി
ചെപാ$ീസി ് അനുകൂ$മായി ചെകാടുനേത്തക്കുനേമാ എന്ന ദി$ീപിചെ: ശ്ശേ'ാ56ത്തി ്
അവിചെട വന്ന ദി$ീപിചെ: സുഹൃത്ത് മറുപടി ചെകാടുക്കുന്നുണ്ടായിരുന്നു . ഏനേതാ
ഉനേദ്യാഗസ്ഥനേയാട് സാഗർ എന്ന സാക്ഷിയുചെട !ാര6ം സാസംസാരിച്ചുചെവന്നും, ആ
ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥയെ താൻ നേ രിൽ കണ്ടുചെവന്നും അയാൾ ദി$ീപിനേ ാട് പറഞ്ഞു.
അശ്ശേ 1ഷണ ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥർക്ക് പണി ചെകാടുക്കണചെമന്നും അവർ ചെമാത്തത്തിൽ
തീരുമാ ചെമടുത്തു. അശ്ശേ 1ഷണ ഉശ്ശേ56ാഗസ്ഥരിൽ നേസാ9ൻ, സുദർശൻ എന്നീ
രണ്ട് നേപർക്കും ല്ല ശിക്ഷയായിരിക്കും ചെകാടുക്കുന്നചെതന്ന് ദി$ീപ് പറയുന്നതും ഞാൻ
നേകട്ടു."
These are the basic information on which Annexure-
9 F.I.R was registered. Therefore, the crucial
question is whether this information attracts the
offences alleged in Annexure -9 FIR.
17. The specific contention put forward by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that
the contents of the statements as referred to
above are only mere utterances made by the
petitioner while he was in his residence. The
further contention is that there are no materials
indicating any further steps taken in pursuance to
the same, and in the absence of such further
steps, no such offences are attracted. Even if it
is assumed that the petitioner was keeping a
grudge against the police officers and wanted to
cause harm to them, that by itself is not
sufficient to prosecute the petitioner for the
offences alleged, points out the learned Senior
Counsel. According to him, there must be materials
indicating a specific design to do away with or
otherwise cause harm to the police officers
concerned, and in the absence of the same, he
cannot be implicated for the offences alleged.
18. While considering the said contentions, it
is to be noted that some of the crucial offences
incorporated in Annexure-9 are under Sections 116
and 118 of the IPC, which relate to the abetment
of offences, including the offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. The offence of
'abetment' is defined under Section 107 IPC which
reads as follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing
A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly- Engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes
place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
In this case, what is relevant is the offence
described in the above provision as "Secondly". A
careful reading of the said provision would indicate
that, in order to attract the offence of abetment
by conspiracy, an act for illegal omission, should
take place in pursuance of that conspiracy. In
other words, the commission of an act or an
illegal omission in furtherance of a conspiracy is
a mandatory requirement for attracting the offence
of abetment. This is clear from the words used in
'Secondly" of the said provision, i.e. "if an act
or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing".
In Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar
[AIR 1962 SC 876], the aforesaid position of law
was made clear, and the relevant portion of the
said decision, which was made while discussing the
distinction between the offences of abetment and
criminal conspiracy, are extracted below:
"Section 120-A which defines the offence of
criminal conspiracy and Section 120-B which
punishes the offence are in Chapter V-A of the
Indian Penal Code. This Chapter introduced into
the criminal law of India a new offence, namely,
the offence of criminal conspiracy. It was
introduced by the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
1913 (8 of 1913). Before that, the sections of
the Indian Penal Code which directly dealt with
the subject of conspiracy were those contained
in Chapter V and Section 121-A (Chapter VI) of
the Code. The present case is not concerned with
the kind of conspiracy referred to in Section
121A. The point before us is the distinction
between the offence of abetment as defined in
Section 107 (Chapter V) and the offence of
criminal conspiracy as defined in Section 120-A
(Chapter V-A). Under Section 107, second clause,
a person abets the doing of a thing, who engages
with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an
act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance
of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of
that thing. Therefore, in order to constitute
the offence of abetment by conspiracy, there
must first be a combining together of two or
more persons in the conspiracy; secondly, an act
or illegal omission must take place in pursuance
of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of
that thing. It is not necessary that the abettor
should concert the offence with the person who
commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in
the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence
is committed. It is worthy of note that a mere
conspiracy or a combination of persons for the
doing of a thing does not amount to an abetment.
Something more is necessary, namely, an act or
illegal omission must take place in pursuance of
the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the
thing for which the conspiracy was made. Before
the introduction of Chapter V-A conspiracy,
except in cases provided by Sections 121-A, 311,
400, 401 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, was a
mere species of abetment where an act or an
illegal omission took place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and amounted fee a distinct offence.
Chapter V-A, however, introduced a new offence
defined by Section 120-A. That offence is called
the offence of criminal conspiracy and consists
in a mere agreement by two or more persons to do
or cause to be done an illegal act or an act
which is not illegal by illegal means; there is
a proviso to the section which says that no
agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy
unless some act besides the agreement is done by
one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof. The position, therefore,
comes to this. The gist of the offence of
criminal conspiracy is in the agreement to do an
illegal act or an act which is not illegal by
illegal means. When the agreement is to commit
an offence, the agreement itself becomes the
offence of criminal conspiracy. Where, however,
the agreement is to do an illegal act which is
not an offence or an act which is not illegal by
illegal means, some act besides the agreement is
necessary. Therefore, the distinction between
the offence of abetment by conspiracy and the
offence of criminal conspiracy, so far as the
agreement to commit an offence is concerned,
lies in this. For abetment by conspiracy mere
agreement is not enough. An act or illegal
omission must take place in pursuance of the
conspiracy and in order to the doing of the
thing conspired for. But in the offence of
criminal conspiracy the very agreement or plot
is an act in itself and is the gist of the
offence. Willes, J. observed in Mulcahy v. Queen
[(1868) LR 3 HL 306 at 317] :
"When two agree to carry it into
effect, the very plot is an act in
itself, and the act of each of the
parties, promise against promise, actus
contra actum, capable of being
enforced, if lawful, punishable if for
a criminal object or for the use of
criminal means."
From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that 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. Since the
offences under sections 116 and 118 are different
forms of offences of abetment, the essential
requirement for making out the said offences are
the same as mentioned above. On going through the
contents of Annexure-9, no such positive act or
illegal omission is seen. It only mentions a
design or agreement without any consequent action
or omission. Therefore, it cannot be concluded
that the offences under Sections 116 and 118 of
IPC are made out from the information furnished.
However, the aforesaid provisions can be
incorporated if there are allegations against the
accused, which would attract the offence under
section 120B. This is because, as per section 120B
of IPC, the punishment for the criminal conspiracy
(in case no express punishment is provided in IPC)
is provided in the same manner as if the accused
had committed the offence of abetment. Therefore,
in such circumstances, if the accused is found to
have committed criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence for which no express punishment is
provided in the IPC, he is deemed to have
committed the offence of abetment, for the purpose
of imposing punishment. Thus the same depends upon
whether the offence under section 120B of IPC is
made out and I shall deal with the said question
when considering the ingredients of section 120B
IPC at a later part of this order.
19. Another offence is under Section 506 which
reads as follows:
"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation:
Whoever commits the offence of criminal
intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc -- And if the threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of
any property by fire, or to cause an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life,
or with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a
woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
In Manik Taneja and Another v. State of Karnataka
and Another [(2015)7 SCC 423] in paragraphs 11 and
12, it was observed as follows:
" 11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment
for the offence of criminal intimidation.
"Criminal intimidation", as defined in Section
503 IPC is as under;
"503. Criminal intimidation.-
Whoever,threatens another with any injury to
his person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom the
person is interested, with intent to cause
alarm to that person, or to cause that person
to do any act which he is not legally bound to
do, or omit to do any act, which that person
is legally entitled to do, as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat, commits
criminal intimidation.
Explanation.--A threat to injure the
reputation of any deceased person in whom the
person is interested , is within this section"
A reading of the definition of 'criminal
intimidation' would indicate that there must be
an act of threatening to another person, of
causing an injury to the person, reputation or
property of the person threatened, or to the
person in whom the threatened person is
interested and the threat must be with the
intend to cause alarm to the person threatened
or it must be to do an act which he is not
legally bound to do, or omit to do an act which
he is legally entitled to do.
12. In the instant case, the allegation is
that the appellants have abused the
complainant and obstructed the second
respondent from discharging his public duties
and spoiled the integrity of the second
respondent. It is the intention of the accused
that has to be considered for deciding as to
whether what he has stated comes within the
meaning of "criminal intimidation". The threat
must be with intention to cause alarm to the
complainant to cause that person to do or omit
to do any work. Mere expression of any words
without any intention to cause alarm would not
be sufficient to bring in the application of
this section. But material has to be placed on
record to show that the intention is to cause
alarm to the complainant........"
Thus, it is evident that unless the threat, which
is the subject matter of the offence, is conveyed
to the victim or was intended to be conveyed to
him so as to cause an alarm in the mind of the
complainant or the victim, it cannot be treated as
criminal intimidation. In this case, the offence
of Section 506 is seen incorporated in Annexure-9
based on certain utterances made by the petitioner
while he was in his own residence. The aforesaid
utterances were made while seeing the images of
five police officers in a video. The manner and
circumstances in which the aforesaid utterances
were made would not amount to any criminal
intimidation, as under no stretch of the
imagination, it can be concluded that the same was
intended to be conveyed to the victims or, in
fact, conveyed to them. The said statements can
never be treated as the statements made with the
intention to cause alarm to the minds of the said
police officers. 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. Moreover, the materials showing the
intention of the petitioner to cause an alarm in
the minds of the said police officers and to
compel/persuade them to do an act or omit to do
something, are also lacking in this case. It is
pertinent to note in this regard that the
aforesaid utterances were allegedly made on
15.11.2017, and the crime is registered in the
year 2022, when the said Balachandra Kumar made
revelations in this regard. In such circumstances,
in the absence of specific allegations in
Annexure-11 or Annexure-10 complaint, which form
the basis of Annexure-9, it cannot be concluded
that the offence under Section 506 is attracted.
20. What remains is the offence under Section
120B of IPC. The punishment for the offence under
Section 120B IPC in respect of criminal conspiracy
to commit an offence with death, imprisonment for
life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two
years or upwards, shall, where no express
provision is made in the IPC for punishment for
such conspiracy, be punishable in the same manner
as if he had abetted such offence. Thus, it was
pointed out that the punishment of section 120B
depends upon the offence for the commission of
which the conspiracy was hatched. Therefore, it
was contended that, in this case, while
registering Annexure-9 FIR, no specific offence
for which conspiracy is allegedly hatched is seen
mentioned. Other than section 120B, the offences
alleged are under Sections 116, 118 and 506 of the
IPC. Thus the petitioner contends that, since the
aforesaid offences are not made out from the
information furnished, the offence of conspiracy
would not lie independently. It is true that,
I had already found that the offences under
Sections 116, 118 and 506 of IPC are not attracted
from the allegations contained in Annexure-9.
However, it is a fact that, subsequently, a
further report was submitted by the police
incorporating the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The contention of the learned Senior Counsel in
this regard is that since the conspiracy alleged
in Annexure-9 is in respect of the commission of
an offence under Sections 116, 118 and 506 IPC,
which are not attracted, it cannot be concluded
that it reveals any cognizable offence. In such
circumstances, the registration of Annexure-9 was
illegal, and subsequent inclusion of Section 302
IPC cannot improve the case of the police,
contends the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner. However, I am not inclined to accept
the aforesaid contention. This is particularly
because what is relevant is not the offences
mentioned explicitly in the FIR but what is
revealed from the contents of the information
furnished therein. Merely because a particular
provision of the offence was omitted to be
included in the First Information Statement, it
cannot be concluded that the aforesaid offence is
not attracted. In case the contents of the First
Information Report reveal the commission of a
particular offence, non mentioning the provision
of the said offence is not material, and it would
not adversely affect the prosecution case. In
Bijumon V. State of Kerala and Anr. [2018 (3)KLT
627, the aforesaid situation was dealt with by
this Court in paragraph 18 thereof in the manner
as follows:
"18. The fact that the penal provision of
S.295A IPC is not mentioned in the first
information report is of little consequence.
Mentioning a wrong provision of law in the
first information report should not be a ground
for rejecting the prosecution case. It should
not also be a ground for granting anticipatory
bail to the accused. The question is whether
the allegations levelled against the accused
would constitute an offence and if so, which
penal provision is attracted. At any stage of
the investigation of the case, the
investigating officer could correct a mistake
in mentioning a particular section of offence.
Even after the charge sheet is filed, the Court
may alter or add to any charge at any time
before judgment is pronounced, as provided in
S.216 of the Code. S.215 of the Code provides
that no error in stating either the offence or
the particulars required to be stated in the
charge, and no omission to state the offence or
those particulars, shall be regarded at any
stage of the case as material, unless the
accused was in fact misled by such error or
omission, and it has occasioned a failure of
justice. If this is the position of law in
respect of an error in the charge, an error in
mentioning the section of offence in the first
information report would not definitely cause
prejudice to the accused and it would not
entitle him to the grant of anticipatory bail
(See Prakash v. State of Kerala, 2009 (4) KHC
329 : 2009 (4) KLT 348)."
21. Thus, the question to be considered in
this case is whether the offence under Section
120B IPC is attracted, even if the other offences
mentioned in the FIR are not seen attracted.
Section 120B IPC deals with criminal conspiracy.
Section 120A of IPC defines 'criminal conspiracy'
in the manner as follows:
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause
to be done,-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal
means, such an agreement is designated a
criminal conspiracy:
PROVIDED that no agreement except an agreement
to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the
agreement is one by one or more parties to
such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: It is immaterial whether the
illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to that
object."
The careful reading of the aforesaid definition,
particularly the proviso to Section 120A, would
reveal that with regard to the conspiracy to
commit the offence, an agreement to commit an
offence by itself is an offence. It is not
necessary that some acts besides the agreement are
to be performed for attracting the offence of
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence. In other
words, agreement to commit an offence by itself is
an offence as defined under Section 120A IPC which
is punishable under Section 120B. Therefore, the
crucial question that arises here is whether the
FIR contained an allegation/information revealing
an agreement to commit an offence. I have already
extracted the relevant provisions of the FIR and
the complaint which formed the basis of the said
FIR, which are produced in the Crl.MC as
Annexures-9 and 10, respectively. It is true that,
the primary allegation raised in the said F.I.R is
based on some utterances made by the petitioner
while he was sitting in his residence. I am of the
view that the aforesaid utterances by themselves
cannot be treated as a material for attracting the
offence of criminal conspiracy. For the said
purpose, an agreement or a design for the
commission of a crime is required. When the
contents of Annexures 9 and 10, along with the
statements of Sri.Balachandra Kumar produced in
this Crl.M.C as Annexures 11 and 12 are taken into
consideration; it reveals an allegation that on
15.11.2017, the petitioners have arrived at an
agreement for causing harm to the police officers.
A specific statement to that effect is contained
therein. 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 is
true 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 the
aforesaid 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 that
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.
22. The position of law with regard to the
offence as defined under Section 120A, which is
punishable under Section 120B IPC, and the
independent existence thereof even in the absence
of further steps in pursuance of a conspiracy, has
been a subject matter in a large number of
decisions. In Nirmal Chandra De v The King-
Emperor (AIR 1927 Cal 265), it was observed by the
Calcutta High Court, in the manner as follows:
"5. Criminal conspiracy consists in the
agreement of two or more persons to commit an
offence punishable by law. It is undoubtedly
true that the law does not take notice of the
intention or the state of mind of the offender
and there must be some overt act to give
expression to that intention. It was observed
in the case of Mulcahy v. The Queen [1868] 3
H.L. 306 by Willes, J., as follows:
"A conspiracy consists not merely in
the intention of two or more, but in the
agreement of two or more to do an
unlawful act by unlawful means. So long
as such a design rests in intention
only, it is not indictable, when two
agree to carry it into effect, the very
plot is an act in itself, and the act of
each of the parties, promise against
promise, actus contractum, capable of
being enforced, if lawful, punishable if
for a criminal object or for the use of
criminal means"
6. This dictum has been accepted as good law.
The overt act therefore, in a case of
conspiracy consists in the agreement of the
parties and this is the view which has been
adopted by the Indian Legislature in the
definition of "conspiracy" as given in Section
120A I.P.C., in which the proviso says that:
"no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a
criminal conspiracy unless some act
besides the agreement is done by one
or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof".
7. This definition excludes the agreement to
commit an offence from the category of such
conspiracies in which it is necessary that the
agreement should be followed by some act."
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai and
Others [(2009) (8) SCC 617], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was pleased to observe in paragraphs 37, 38,
39 and 40 as follows:
" 37. Criminal conspiracy is an independent
offence. It is punishable separately.
Prosecution,therefore, for the purpose of
bringing the charge of criminal conspiracy
read with the aforementioned provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act was required to
establish the offence by applying the same
legal principles which are otherwise
applicable for the purpose of bringing a
criminal misconduct on the part of an accused.
38. A criminal conspiracy must be put to
action inasmuch as so long a crime is
generated in the mind of an accused, it does
not become punishable. What is necessary is
not thoughts, which may even be criminal in
character, often involuntary, but offence
would be said to have been committed
thereunder only when that take concrete shape
of an agreement to do or cause to be done an
illegal act or an act which although not
illegal by illegal means and then if nothing
further is done the agreement would give rise
to a criminal conspiracy.Its ingredients are
(i) an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or
causing to be done either (a) an illegal act;
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but
is done by illegal means.
39. What is, therefore, necessary is to show
meeting of minds of two or more persons for
doing or causing to be done an illegal act or
an act by illegal means.While saying so, we
are not oblivious of the fact that often
conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and for
proving the said offence substantial direct
evidence may not be possible to be obtained.
An offence of criminal conspiracy can also be
proved by circumstantial evidence.
40. In Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State
(Delhi Administration), [(1988) 3 SCC 609 at
731], the following passage from Russell on
Crimes (12th Edn. Vol 1):
"The gist of the offence of
conspiracy then lies, not in doing
the act, or effecting the purpose for
which the conspiracy is formed, nor
in attempting to do them, nor in
inciting others to do them, but in
the forming of the scheme or
agreement between the parties.
Agreement is essential. Mere
knowledge, or even discussion, of the
plan is not, per se enough"
Thus, from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as above, it is evident that, 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.
In this case, it is true that, Annexure-9 FIR
does not contain any substantiating materials
indicating the nature of the agreement and the
stage of execution of such agreement. However, it
contains information as to the existence of an
agreement to commit an offence punishable with
more than two years. In such circumstances, no
discrepancies or any legal infirmity can be
attributed to the registration of the said FIR.
The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the registration of FIR is a
violation of Section 154 Cr.PC is, therefore,
liable to be rejected.
23. The main prayer sought by the petitioner
is to quash Annexure-9 FIR, as according to him,
the offences alleged against him are not made out.
It is also his case that the registration of the
case itself is with malafide intentions. To
support the aforesaid contentions, it is alleged
that the 3rd respondent, the first informant had
interacted with the said Balachandra Kumar on
three occasions, i.e. on 2.10.2021, 16.11.2021 and
27.12.2021. In addition to that, by placing
reliance upon Annexure-15 series, it is
highlighted that the 5th respondent, who has
ordered the registration of crime in this case
based on Annexure-10 complaint submitted by the 3rd
respondent, is not a person with a clean track
record in his service. The acquaintance of the 5th
respondent with the aforesaid Balachandra Kumar is
also sought to be established by certain Whatsapp
messages produced as Annexure-17. The fact that
the 5th respondent was inducted into the Special
Investigation Team for conducting further
investigation in Crime No.297/2017 immediately
after the revelations made by the said Balachandra
Kumar was also relied on by the petitioner to
substantiate the malafide intention and concerted
efforts on the part of the 3rd and 5th respondents
to implicate the petitioner in this Crime. On
examining the petitioner's contentions in the
matter of malafides and materials relied on by
him, I am unable to accept the same. I am of the
view that there are no sufficient materials
produced by the petitioner to substantiate the
same, apart from mere allegations. Even though it
was contended that the 5th respondent was
acquainted with the said Balachandra Kumar, the
only material is certain Whatsaap messages in
which the 5th respondent was not a party. His name
is seen referred to therein. The message does
indicate that the 5th respondent is a family friend
of the young singer who was recommended by
Sri.Balachandra Kumar. However, the contents of
the said message cannot be accepted as a material
showing the close direct relationship between the
said parties. Therefore we are not concerned with
the alleged tainted past of the 5th respondent as
well. The investigation is being conducted by the
2nd respondent, and there are no allegations raised
against him. In such circumstances, I do not find
any reason to accept the contentions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view,
even otherwise, the aforesaid contentions cannot
be treated as a valid ground for quashing the
proceedings. In Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P.
[(2013)10 SCC 591], it was observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as follows:
"15. The issue of malafides looses its
significance if there is a substance in the
allegation made in complaint moved with
malice. In Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of
Bihar & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 877, this Court
held as under:
"It is a well-established proposition of law
that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise
justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does
not become vitiated on account of mala fides or
political vendetta of the first informant or
complainant."
16. In Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab
& Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1274, this Court held as
under:
"The ultimate test, therefore, is whether the
allegations have any substance. An investigation
should not be shut out at the threshold because a
political opponent or a person with political
difference raises an allegation of commission of
offence.Therefore, the plea of mala fides as
raised cannot be maintained."
17. In State of A.P. v. Goloconda Linga Swamy
& Anr., AIR 2004 SC 3967, this Court held as
under:
"It is the material collected during the
investigation and evidence led in court which
decides the fate of the accused person. The
allegations of malafides against the informant
are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be
the basis for quashing the proceeding."
(See also: K. Karunakaran v. State of
Kerala, (2007) 1 SCC 59).
18. Thus, in view of the above, it becomes
evident that in case there is some substance
in the allegations and material exists to
substantiate the complicity of the
applicant, the case is to be examined in its
full conspectus and the proceedings should
not be quashed only on the ground that the
same had been initiated with mala fides to
wreak vengeance or to achieve an ulterior
goal."
24. 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, in the light of the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
25. Another contention put forward by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was by
placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.
and Others [(2014)2 SCC 1]. In the said judgment,
a constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the circumstances under which a
preliminary inquiry is warranted before the
registration of the FIR. In paragraph 120.6, the
nature of the cases in which preliminary inquiry
may be made which reads as follows:
"120.6. As to what type and in which cases
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will
depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. The category of cases in which
preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e)Cases where there is abnormal delay/latches
in initiating criminal prosecution, for example,
over three months' delay in reporting the matter
without satisfactorily explaining the reasons
for the delay."
It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel
that one of the instances mentioned by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is abnormal delay/latches in
initiating criminal prosecution over three months
delay in reporting the matter before
satisfactorily explaining the delay. By placing
reliance upon the same, it is contended that, in
this case, the alleged conspiracy took place on
15.11.2017, and the revelation in this regard was
made only during the month of December 2021. The
crime was registered on 9.1.2022. In such
circumstances, it was pointed out that the
registration of FIR without a preliminary inquiry
was not proper. I am of 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. Apart from the
above, another crucial aspect to be noticed is
that even though the revelation of the said
Balachandra Kumar was made through visual media on
25.12.2021, his statements were recorded
subsequently. The audio clips produced by him to
substantiate his claims were also examined. The
F.I.R was registered thereafter. Therefore, it was
not a case where the case was registered merely
upon getting the information, but some inquiry is
seen conducted before the same. In such
circumstances, I do not find any merit in the
contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
26. About the power of this Court to interfere
in an investigation, the settled position of law
is that it is very much limited. In State of
Haryana and Others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and
Others[(1992) Supp(1) SCC 335] the Hon'ble Supreme
Court framed guidelines regarding the manner by
which the exercise of the powers of the High Court
in the matter of interfering with the
investigation. The guidelines prescribed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 104 are
extracted hereunder:
"104. In the backdrop of the interpretation
of the various relevant provisions of the
Code under Chap.XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Art.226 or the
inherent powers under S.482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way
of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under S.156
(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of
the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under S.155(2)of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R.
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/ or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/ or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
The learned counsel for the petitioner places
reliance upon guidelines numbers 5 and 7 thereof
and contends that the same is attracted in the
facts of this case. I do not find any merit in the
said contentions. Of course, it is true that, at
the moment, there are no materials substantiating
the aforesaid allegations. It is relevant to note
that while considering the Bail Applications
submitted by the accused in this case, this Court
observed in Annexure-18 order that the materials
placed on record do not attract the offences
alleged against the petitioner. However, it is to
be noted that, in the aforesaid order itself, it
has been clarified by this Court that the
observations made by the Court were only to
consider the question of whether the petitioners
are entitled to bail or not. In this case, the
question that is being considered is whether
interference in the investigation is warranted by
invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.PC. To
consider the invocation of the said powers while
interfering with the FIR, the relevant
consideration can only be the allegation contained
in the FIR and not the materials placed in support
of the same. I have already observed that the
materials substantiating the allegations are to be
collected through the process of investigation,
which has to commence based on the registration of
the FIR. Therefore, 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 I am prepared
to accept the contention of the petitioner that,
at the moment, there are no conclusive materials
substantiating the allegations in the FIR. As
already observed, what is relevant at this time is
whether the allegations constitute an offence,
which I have already found against the petitioner.
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.
27. Similarly, another contention is that the
criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with
malafides, and therefore, guideline No.7 in Bhajan
Lal's case is applicable. I have already entered a
finding in this regard against the petitioner, and
hence the said contention of the petitioner is not
sustainable.
28. Even otherwise, the power of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.PC in the matter of
interference at the stage of FIR is very much
limited. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat [(2001)
7 SCC 659], it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment as follows:
"9. We respectfully record our concurrence
therewith. Criminal proceedings, in the
normal course of event sought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage, unless the
same amounts to an abuse of the process of
law. In the normal course of events thus,
quashing of a complaint should rather be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary
rule. The genuineness of the averments in
the FIR cannot possibly be gone into and the
document shall have to be read as a whole so
as to decipher the intent of the maker
thereof. It is not a document which requires
decision with exactitude neither it is a
document which requires mathematical
accuracy and nicety, but the same should be
able to communicate or indicative of
disclosure of an offence broadly and in the
event the said test stands satisfied, the
question relating to the quashing of a
complaint would not arise. It is in this
context however one feature ought to be
noticed at this juncture that there cannot
possibly be any guiding factor as to which
investigation ought to be scuttled at the
initial stages and investigations which
ought not be so scuttled. The First
Information Report needs to be considered
and if the answer is found on a perusal
thereof which leads to disclosure of an
offence even broadly, law Courts are barred
from usurping the jurisdiction of the police
since two organs of the State operate in two
specific spheres of activities and one ought
not to tread over the other sphere."
In the light of the judicial precedents discussed
above and applying the principles laid down
therein in the facts of this case, the only
conclusion possible is that 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. Therefore the prayer for quashing Annexure-9
FIR is hereby declined.
29. The next question that arises is the
alternative prayer sought by the petitioner;
transfer of investigation of the case to the 8th
respondent, i.e., CBI, to ensure fair, impartial
and truthful investigation. The main reasons
highlighted by the petitioner in support of the
aforesaid prayers are as follows:
a) The allegation against the petitioner is
entering into a conspiracy to do away with some
police officers, including a DGP. Therefore,
senior police officers are interested in the
matter, and they are likely to influence the
investigating officer;
b) The first informant, who is the 3rd
respondent in this Crl.M.C. and also the
investigation officer in Crime No.297/2017, has
a personal grudge against the petitioner, and
the registration of the crime is the outcome of
the same;
c) The 3rd respondent and the Balachandra
Kumar, who provided the information to him as
to the commission of the crime, had mutual
discussions on three occasions before the
registration of the crime;
d) Immediately after the registration of the
crime in this case and also after commencing
the re-investigation in Crime No.297/2017, a
search was conducted in the residences of the
accused persons jointly by the special
investigation team (consisting of 3rd
respondent), which is conducting re-
investigation in Crime No.297/2017 and also by
the investigation officer of this crime.
According to the petitioner, the same was with
malafide intention and to create false evidence
supporting the allegations;
e) Personal acquaintance of the said
Balachandra Kumar with the 5th respondent
herein who ordered registration of the crime
in this case on getting the complaint from the
3rd respondent. The fact that the 5th respondent
was inducted as one of the members of the
special investigation team for supervising the
further investigation of Crime No.297/2017.
The disciplinary proceedings and certain
adverse remarks against the 5th respondent made
in some other proceedings were also relied on;
f) The registration of crime in the year 2022
regarding a criminal conspiracy alleged to
have hatched on 15.11.2017, and there was no
evidence of any further steps being taken in
pursuance of such alleged criminal conspiracy.
30. The learned Senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner places reliance upon the decision
rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Babubhai v. State of Gujrat and Others [(2010) 12
SCC 254], wherein it was observed that, not only a
fair trial but a fair investigation is also part
of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles
20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
31. Before going into the merits of the
aforesaid contention, the crucial aspect to be
considered is about the maintainability of the
relief of transfer of investigation to CBI. It is
to be noted that, in this case, the prayer for
transfer of investigation is sought in a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C by invoking the inherent
powers of this Court. In State of Punjab v.
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others [(2011) 14
SCC 770], this Court made the following
observations:
"60.The rule of inherent powers has its
source in the maxim "quando lex aliquid
alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine
quo res ipsa, esse non potest" which means
that when the law gives anything to anyone,
it gives also all those things without which
the thing itself could not exist. The order
cannot be passed by-passing the procedure
prescribed by law. The court in exercise of
its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot
direct a particular agency to investigate
the matter or to investigate a case from a
particular angle or by a procedure not
prescribed in Cr.P.C. Such powers should be
exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of
process of any court. Courts must be careful
to see that its decision in exercise of this
power is based on sound principles."
However, in the said decision, it was made clear
that, the High Court can issue appropriate
directions in this regard by invoking powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
32. In such circumstances, even if the prayer
for transfer of investigation to CBI is not
maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C., nothing
precludes this Court from issuing appropriate
directions in this regard by exercising powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
When it comes to the invocation of the said
powers, the next question that arises for
consideration is whether the petitioner being an
accused, has a right to seek such a prayer. While
scanning through the precedents on the point, one
of the crucial observations in this regard is
found in Sivakumar E. v. Union of India and others
[(2018)7 SCC 365], which was rendered by the
Honourable Supreme Court. The relevant
observations in Paragraph No.9, which reads as
follows:
"9. ..................................................But a person who is
named as an accused in the FIR, who
otherwise has no right to be heard at the
stage of investigation or to have an
opportunity of hearing as a matter of
course, cannot be heard to say that the
direction issued to transfer the
investigation to CBI is a nullity. This
ground, in our opinion, is an argument of
desperation and deserves to be rejected."
33. It is true that, the above observations
were made by the Honourable Supreme Court while
considering a challenge raised by the accused
therein against the direction issued by the High
Court transferring the investigation to CBI. The
prayer for transfer of investigation to another
agency, at the instance of the accused, was
considered in Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of
India and Others [(2016) 1 SCC 1], wherein it was
observed that the accused has no right concerning
the manner of investigation or mode of
prosecution.
34. Similarly, in Romila Thapar and others v.
Union of India and Others [(2018) 10 SCC 753], the
Honourable Supreme Court again considered the
specific question as to whether the investigating
agency can be changed at the behest of the
accused. After elaborately discussing the various
judicial precedents in this regard, it was
observed in paragraph No.30 as follows:
"In view of the above, it is clear that the
consistent view of this Court is that the
accused cannot ask for changing the
investigating agency or to do investigation
in a particular manner including for court-
monitored investigation."
35. The aforesaid view was reiterated by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami
v. Union of India and Others [(2020) 14 SCC 12].
36. Thus, from the principles laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decisions, it is evident that the
petitioner/accused does not have any right to seek
a change of investigation agency. The reason
highlighted by the Honourable Supreme Court is
that, during the course of the investigation, the
accused does not have any right to be heard. In
Romila Thapar's case, there is a dissenting
judgment favouring transfer of agency, but even in
that, the finding is that such a direction ought
to be issued by invoking the powers of the
Honourable Supreme Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, which is not available to
the High Court.
37. The question regarding the circumstances
under which transfer of investigation can be
ordered by the High Court while exercising its
constitutional powers has been considered by the
Honourable Supreme Court in State of W.B v.
Committee of Protection of Democratic Rights
[(2010) 3 SCC 571], and in paragraph No.70 it is
held as follows:
"Before parting with the case, we deem it
necessary to emphasise that despite wide
powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of
the Constitution, while passing any order,
the Courts must bear in mind certain self-
imposed limitations on the exercise of these
Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of
the power under the said Articles requires
great caution in its exercise. In so far as
the question of issuing a direction to the
CBI to conduct investigation in a case is
concerned, although no inflexible guidelines
can be laid down to decide whether or not
such power should be exercised but time and
again it has been reiterated that such an
order is not to be passed as a matter of
routine or merely because a party has
levelled some allegations against the local
police. This extra-ordinary power must be
exercised sparingly, cautiously and in
exceptional situations where it becomes
necessary to provide credibility and instil
confidence in investigations or where the
incident may have national and international
ramifications or where such an order may be
necessary for doing complete justice and
enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise
the CBI would be flooded with a large number
of cases and with limited resources, may find
it difficult to properly investigate even
serious cases and in the process lose its
credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory
investigations."
38. The learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on K.V.Rajendran v. Superintendent of
Police CBCID and Others [(2013) 12 SCC 480],
wherein it was observed that the court could
exercise its constitutional powers for
transferring an investigation from the State
investigating agency to any other independent
investigating agency like CBI only in rare and
exceptional cases, such as where high officials of
State authorities are involved, or the accusation
itself is against top officials of the
investigating agency, thereby allowing them to
influence the investigation. The learned counsel
for the petitioner also places reliance upon the
observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court
in Divine Retreat Center v. State of Kerala
[(2009) 6 SCC 65], to the effect that neither the
accused nor the complainant or informant are
entitled to choose there own investigating agency,
to investigate the crime in which they are
interested.
39. At the same time learned DGP places
reliance upon the observations made in paragraph
No.13 of K.V.Rajendran's case supra, which reads
as follows:
"...This Court has time and again dealt with
the issue under what circumstances the
investigation can be transferred from the
State investigating agency to any other
independent investigating agency like CBI.
It has been held that the power of
transferring such investigation must be in
rare and exceptional cases where the court
finds it necessary in order to do justice
between the parties and to instil confidence
in the public mind, or where investigation
by the State police lacks credibility and it
is necessary for having "a fair, honest and
complete investigation", and particularly,
when it is imperative to retain public
confidence in the impartial working of the
State agencies."
40. According to the learned DGP, no such
circumstances are in existence in this case,
warranting an order of transfer of the case to
CBI. It was pointed out that a fair and unbiased
investigation is going on.
41. Thus, when the question of the necessity
to refer the investigation to another agency is
considered, the main contention put forward by the
petitioner is regarding the interest that the
police have in this case. This is mainly because
the allegation is regarding a conspiracy hatched
to do away with the police officers, including a
senior officer at the helm of affairs of the
Department. The reliance placed on the
observations in K.V.Rajendran's case made by the
petitioner in this regard is not sustainable.
This is mainly because that was a case in which
the allegation was related to the involvement of
the police in the commission of the crime,
whereas, in this case, such a situation is not
there. 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. In Committee for Democratic Rights
case (supra), it was categorically held by the
Honourable Supreme Court that the transfer of
investigating agency could not be made as a
routine merely because a party has levelled some
allegation against the police. In this case, on
going through the allegations raised by the
petitioner against the police, I do not find any
sufficient force in them to conclude that no
proper and fair investigation is possible in this
case. The petitioner has indeed raised specific
allegations regarding the collusion of the 3rd
respondent with the said Balachandra Kumar before
registering the crime. The petitioner also cited
certain clandestine meetings between them.
However, apart from mere allegations, there are no
materials substantiating the same. Even though
certain documents, which indicated some suspected
blemish in the service record of the 5th
respondent, were also relied on, I am of the view
that the same is not relevant for this case. The
investigation is being conducted by the 2nd
respondent herein, and conspicuously, the
petitioner did not raise any allegations against
him. The 5th respondent is indeed a superior
officer to the 2nd respondent, and one of the
alleged victims of the crime is also a superior
officer. However, in the absence of any material
indicating influence being thrust upon him at the
instance of such superior officers, an order for
transferring the investigation to another agency
cannot be made. 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.
In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to
allow the prayer sought for the transfer of
investigation in this case.
42. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
However, it is made clear that the findings
and observations made in this order were only to
ascertain whether the petitioner has made out a
case for invocation of powers of this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. at this stage. None of the
findings and observations in this order shall
preclude the petitioner from raising his
contentions at appropriate stages and invoking his
remedies for challenging the final report, if any,
filed against him in this case.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1106/2022
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.297/17 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION DATED
17.04.2017
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.
297/17 OF OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION
DATED 22.11.2017
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF HONOURABLE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ANGAMALY
IN CMP NO. 985/2017 IN CRIME NO. 297/2017
OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION DATED
17.01.2018
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER IN
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 328/2021 IN
CRL A NO. 1794/2019 OF HONOURABLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA DATED 01-03-2021
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BEFORE
THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 27-12-
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT IN S.C. 118 OF 2018 AS CRL M.P
2466/2021 DATED 29.12.2021 ( WITHOUT
ANNEXURES )
Annexure 6(a) THE TYPED COMPLAINT OF SRI. BALACHANDRA
KUMAR
Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT PETITION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER AS CRL MP NO. 2478
A/2021 IN S.C.NO.118/18 DATED 30.12.2021 (
WITHOUT ANNEXURES)
Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
PETITIONER TO THE STATE POLICE CHIEF DATED
01.01.2022
Annexure 9(a) TRUE COPY OF REPORT ADDING SECTION 302
FILED BEFORE JFCMC ALUVA DATED 13.01.2022
Annexure 10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY 3RD RESPONDENT
TO ADGP DATED 09.01.2022.
Annexure 11 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MR
BALACHANDRA KUMAR U/ 161 CRPC DATED
01.01.2022
Annexure 12 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MR
BALACHANDRA KUMAR U/ 161 CRPC DATED
03.01.2022
Annexure 13 VOICE CLIP OF BALACHANDRA KUMAR DT
14.04.2021 IN PENDRIVE
Annexure 13(a) TRUE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ABOVE VOICE NOTE
DATED 14.04.2021
Annexure14 TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE SENT TO DIMITHRAN
BY BALACHANDRA KUMAR
Annexure15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B 1/9198/08ER OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM
DATED 30.09.2008
Annexure 15(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.80/CAMP /ADGP-
CRIMES/08 DATED 07.11.2008 ISSUED BY ADDL
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
Annexure 15(b) TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO. 1028/2013/GAD
DATED 06.02.2013 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Annexure 15 (c) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2008 IN
WP ( C ) NO.18058/2007 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
Annexure 15(d) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA IN WP C 21648 OF 2020 DATED
20.10.2020
Annexure 15(e) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO. 3/2021 IN WP
( C )NO. 16674/2021 DATED 2.12.2021
Annexure 16 TRUE COPY OF SEARCH LIST (3 NOS) IN THE
CRIME NO.6/2022 SUBMITTED TO JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO. I , ALUVA
Annexure 17 TRUE COPY OF WHATSAPPMESSAGE SENT BY SRI
BALACHADRA KUMAR TO NADIRSHA
Annexure 18 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ORDER DATED 07.02.2022
IN B.A. NO. 248/2022 PASSED BY HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure ANNEXURE R2A OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-20222
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B1
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B2
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B3
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B4 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B5 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B6 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2C OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2D OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2E OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2G OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2H OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2i OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B1
Annexure ANNEXURE R2E OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2i OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2A OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-20222
Annexure ANNEXURE R2D OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2F OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2J OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2F OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B4 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B5 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B6 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2C OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2J OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2G OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2H OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B2
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B3
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B4 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B5 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B6 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B3
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B1
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B2
Annexure ANNEXURE R2C OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2D OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2E OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2A OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-20222
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2J OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2G OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2i OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2H OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2F OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B2
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B3
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B4 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B5 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B6 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2C OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2F OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2D OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2H OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2G OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2i OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2J OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B1
Annexure ANNEXURE R2E OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2A OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-20222
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B3
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B4 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B5 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B6 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2C OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2D OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2E OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2A OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-20222
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B1
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B2
Annexure ANNEXURE R2G OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2i OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2J OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2H OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2F OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B4 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B5 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B6 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2C OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2D OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2i OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2E OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2A OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-20222
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B1
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B3
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B2
Annexure ANNEXURE R2J OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2G OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2H OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2F OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B5 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2C OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B6 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2i OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2D OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2F OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2G OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B4 OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2J OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2H OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2E OF THE STATEMENT IN CRLMC
1106-2022
Annexure ANNEXURE R2A OF STATEMENT FILED IN CRLMC
1106-20222
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B1
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B2
Annexure ANNEXURE R2B3
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Annexure Annexure 20
Annexure Annexure21
Annexure Annexure 19
