Ponnani rape case: Kerala High Court upholds magistrate order directing FIR against three cops

The Kerala High Court on Friday upheld a magistrate's order directing registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against three senior police officers in connection with the Ponnani rape case [Vinod Valiyattoor & ors v State of Kerala & anr].

Justice Jobin Sebastian said that he did not find any procedural lapse in the proceedings initiated by the magistrate.

"For the foregoing reason, I find no ground warranting interference with the order impugned in this criminal miscellaneous case," the judge ruled.

During the hearing, the judge also questioned the police as to why they had not registered an FIR despite the magistrate's order.

He added that while the legality and maintainability of the magistrate's order could be examined, that by itself did not justify non-compliance with the directions to investigate.

"When a magistrate specifically orders an investigation, can an SHO refrain from registering an FIR solely on the ground that ‘I am a junior officer’? That is not permissible. Please verify. It will create anarchy. I am afraid why the DGP is saying that the SHO could not register an FIR," Justice Sebastian remarked.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the three accused cops -Superintendent of Police (SP) Sujith Das, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) VV Benny and Circle Inspector Vinod Valiyattoor (petitioners).

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ponnani who had directed the Station House Officer (SHO) to register FIR against the officers and investigate the private complaint filed by the de-facto complainant alleging rape and sexual assault by them.

The petitioners contended the allegations against them were false, malicious and motivated.

They submitted that the complaint was lodged by the woman as a counterblast to official actions taken by them in the discharge of their duties.

"It is also pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate ought to have arrived at a conclusion that the allegations were not mala fide or intended to pressurize the officers to act in a particular manner and that the 2nd respondent was not attempting to wreak vengeance against responsible police officers for having discharged their official duties," the petition added.

It was alleged that the magistrate mechanically forwarded the complaint for registration of crime without complying with the safeguards available to public servants under Sections 175(3) and 175(4) (provision intended to safeguard public servants against false and motivated prosecutions) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The petition highlighted a series of complaints made by the de-facto complainant from 2022 onwards and claimed that multiple departmental enquiries conducted by senior police officials based on the complaints had found the allegations to be false or motivated.

It further stated that the Supreme Court, while dealing with earlier proceedings arising from the dispute, had emphasised compliance with the procedures prescribed under Section 175 BNSS before any decision was taken on forwarding the complaint for investigation.

Therefore, the petitioners challenged the legality of the magistrate's July 9 order directing registration of an FIR.

However, the Court did not

Senior counsel S Sreekumar appeared for the officers along with advocates S Rajeev, MS Aneer, Sarath KP, Anilkumar CR, KS Kiran Krishnan, TP Aravind, Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, Maheswar Padickal, Akshara S, Nivedita Rajeev and Dipa V.

Director General of Prosecution T Asaf Ali appeared for the state.

The de-facto complainant was represented by advocates Gentle CD, M. Shameem Ahamed and Muhammed Firdouz AV

[Read Judgment]