Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Friday rejected diplomatic bags case accused Swapna Suresh's pleas seeking to quash cases registered by the state police against her in Thiruvananthapuram and Palakkad.
Dismissing the pleas, the high court observed that the challenge raised by the petitioner is "premature" and said it is a well-settled position of law that the quashing of an FIR could be ordered only in the rarest of rare cases, the principles relating to which are specifically laid down by the Supreme Court in the Bhajan Lal case.
"After considering all the contentions and the materials placed by the petitioner, I am not satisfied that these are cases which would fall under any of the seven categories mentioned by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case," Justice Ziyad Rahman A A said in the order dismissing the plea.
Suresh had moved the court two months ago seeking to quash the FIRs registered against her for allegedly conspiring to cause a riot in the state through her recent revelations. The court observed that Suresh could not make out a case for interference at this stage and it did not find any justifiable reasons for interference in the present investigations.
It said the allegations raised against Suresh in both the FIRs are similar in nature and it "contains necessary ingredients for attracting the offences" alleged against her. The court said the malicious nature of proceedings cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings as it is premature.
"The investigation is in progress and the same has to reach its logical conclusions," it said. In her plea, Suresh alleged that she was falsely implicated in the case and claimed that former state minister K T Jaleel had filed the complaint after she had given information about his "illegal activities" before the court.
Suresh, in her plea, had also alleged the involvement of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, two of his family members, former minister Jaleel, former Assembly Speaker P Sreeramakrishnan, former principal secretary to CM, M Sivasankar, and some top bureaucrats in "anti-national activities at the UAE Consulate including gold smuggling".
The court also rejected Suresh's contention that she is a person having materials in her possession indicating the role of the Chief Minister and others who are in power, in commission of certain criminal acts and therefore she satisfies the definition of witness as per the witness protection scheme.
"The crucial facts to be noticed is that, the petitioner (Suresh) had given a statement under Section 164 of CrPC, in a case where the petitioner is an accused. The statements made by the petitioner also contain self-incriminating materials," the court said.
"Since she, being an accused in the case in which she made revelations, under no circumstances can be treated as a witness," it said. (PTI)
