The First Information Report (FIR) initially registered against Mavunkal alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 468 (Forgery), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In his plea, Lakshman said that his name was not included when the FIR was initially registered against Mavunkal who is the prime accused in the case.
However, on June 9, the DySP filed a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court arraying the IG as the third accused in the said case as well as adding offences under sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), the plea stated.
Lakshman contended that the “uncontroverted allegation” in the FIR registered against him won’t constitute an offence as there was no material to prove any criminal intention and motive on his part.
“It appears that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the above case after getting a 164 statement from a person. Whether the petitioner was present at the time in the alleged place was not at all enquired into and investigated by the 2nd respondent (Deputy Superintendent of Police). Without any scientific investigation, the petitioner was made an accused in the above case,” the plea said.
He also highlighted the delay in arraying him as an accused in the case against Mavunkal.
“Arraying the petitioner as an accused after 24 months of the registration of the crime without a piece of incriminating material is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner having meritorious service records is thrown into the controversy for reasons best known to the political bosses of the 2nd respondent (Deputy Superintendednt of Police-II)“, the petition stated.
Source: Barandbench
