K.K.Joshwa vs 1. State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 15519 Ker

Kerala High Court

K.K.Joshwa vs 1. State Of Kerala on 6 June, 2024

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
         THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                         WP(CRL.) NO. 575 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

              K.K.JOSHWA,
              AGED 71 YEARS, S/O KUNJUMMEN, AGED 71,
              KALEEKKAL, SNRA 81, SURYA NAGAR, POWDIKONAM P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 588.
              BY ADVS.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
                      ABHIRAM T.K.

RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
              HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
     2        DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THYCAUD P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.
     3        STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
              MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION, MANNANTHALA P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 043.
 * ADDL.R4 SIBY MATHEWS,
           AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH MATHEW,
           TC.14/229, SILVERHILLS, ANAYARA P.O.,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029.
           * ADDL.R4.IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04/06/2023 IN
             I.A.NO.1/23
   R1-R3      SMT.NIMA JACOB, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
              ADV.M.BAIJU NOEL
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      -:2:-
W.P.(Crl.) No.575 of 2023




                                                              'C.R.'
                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following

reliefs:-

I. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P7 passed by the second respondent, in the interest of justice.

II. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the third respondent to consider Exhibit P3 complaint and register a First Information Report at the Mannanthala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, in the interest of justice.

III. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the first respondent to take appropriate departmental action as against the second and third respondents, in accordance with the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 111(iv) of the judgement in Lalita Kumari v.

Government of U.P., reported in [2014 (2) SCC 1], for willfully not registering the FIR on Exhibit P3 and P4 complaints, in the interest of justice.

IV. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

additional 4th respondent, who is arrayed as the respondent

in Exts.P3 and P4 complaints filed by the petitioner.

3. The crux of the case is centered on publication of

Ext.P2 - a book by name 'Nirbhayam', written by the 4 th

respondent and published by Green Books, Thrissur run by

the 2nd accused as the Managing Editor. The specific case of

the petitioner, as espoused in Ext.P3 filed before the Station

House Officer, Mannathala Police Station and Ext.P4 filed

before the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram is that

in Page Nos.209 to 227 of the book by name 'Nirbhayam' a

chapter of having caption "Sooryanelli Case" is incorporated

which relates to the rape of a minor girl by number of

accused persons during 1996. The specific allegation is that

in the above said book, the author of the book revealed the

identity of the rape victim with exact details though her

name was not specifically disclosed. It is alleged that in the

book, names, address and all the details of the parents of the

victim disclosed with certainty and thereby the 4 th

respondent committed an offence punishable under Section

228A of IPC providing imprisonment for a period upto two

years and shall also liable to fine. Accordingly, Ext.P3

complaint was filed before the Station House Officer and

Ext.P4 before the District Police Chief. Ext.P2 produced in

this writ petition, is the exact page of the said book

containing the recitals that would disclose the identity of the

rape victim, as per the contentions raised by the writ

petitioner.

4. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the

proceedings after filing of Exts.P3 and P4, he approached this

Court by filing W.P.(C) No.31667/2019 and this Court passed

an order on 15.12.2022 to consider Exts.P3 and P4 (Exts.P5

and P7 in the above writ petition). As per the directions issued

by this Court, Ext.P7 communication was given to the

petitioner by the Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram

City, stating that it was decided not to take any further action

on Exts.P3 and P4 as found by the Investigating Officer.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out

that, even as per the counter statement filed by the State in W.P.

(C) No.31667/2019, a copy of the same has been placed as

Ext.P5, in Paragraph No.8, it is admitted that, "during the

course of enquiry, statement of victim's father, XXX (name not

disclosed) was recorded. As per the statement, it is revealed

that the name, place and occupation of the parents of the

Sooryanelli victim are same as mentioned in the book named

Nirbhayam".

6. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that even though the prosecution admitted

materials warranting registration of a crime for the offence

punishable under Section 228A of IPC, but shockingly, Ext.P7

communication was given to the petitioner to save the 4 th

respondent from prosecution. The learned counsel brought the

attention of this Court in Ext.P2 - Page No.212 of the so-called

book and read out the relevant portions to appraise the point

that recitals therein, prima facie show commission of offence

punishable under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and

therefore, Ext.P7 order should be interfered directing a proper

investigation, since a cognizable offence punishable under

Section 228A of IPC is prima facie made out compelling

registration of crime against the additional 4th respondent in

view of the decision of the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari v.

Govt. of U.P. and Others [2013 (4) KHC 552].

7. Going by the lengthy judgment in Lalitha

Kumari's case (supra), in Paragraph No.111, the

Constitution Bench of the Apex Court summarised the

conclusion/directions as under:-

"111. Conclusion/Directions:

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in

brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

(iv) The Police Officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

(vi) 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/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months

delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above."

Another decision of the Apex Court in Nipun Saxeena and

Another v. Union of India and Others [2019 (1) KHC 199],

also is pointed out to contend that the Apex Court also issued

directions to address the necessity to protect identity and

names of victims of rape and victims under the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act. The directions issued by

the Apex Court are as under:

"1. No person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc. the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her identity known to the public at large.

2. In cases where the victim is dead or of unsound mind the name of the victim or her Identity should not be disclosed even under the authorization of the next of the kin, unless circumstances justifying the disclosure of her identity exist, which shall be decided by the competent authority, which at present is the Sessions Judge.

3. FIRs relating to offences under S.376, S.376A, S.376AB, S.376B, S.376C, S.376D, S.376DA, S.376DB or 376E of IPC and offences under POCSO shall not

be put in the public domain.

4. In case a victim files an appeal under S.372 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the victim to disclose his/her identity and the appeal shall be dealt with in the manner laid down by law.

5. The police officials should keep all the documents in which the name of the victim is disclosed, as far as possible, in a sealed cover and replace these documents by identical documents in which the name of the victim is removed in all records which may be scrutinised in the public domain.

6. All the authorities to which the name of the victim is disclosed by the investigating agency or the court are also duty bound to keep the name and identity of the victim secret and not disclose it in any manner except in the report which should only be sent in a sealed cover to the investigating agency or the Court.

7. An application by the next of kin to authorise disclosure of identity of a dead victim or of a victim of unsound mind under S.228A(2)(c) of IPC should be made only to the Sessions Judge concerned until

the Government acts under S.228A(1)(c) and lays down a criteria as per our directions for identifying such social welfare institutions or organisations.

8. In case of minor victims under POCSO, disclosure of their identity can only be permitted by the Special Court, if such disclosure is in the interest of the child.

9. All the States/Union Territories are requested to set up at least one 'one stop centre' in every district within one year from today."

8. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent who

got arrayed as a party subsequently on his volition filed a

counter statement and pointed out that, as per Clause (vi)(e)

of Paragraph 111 of Lalitha Kumari's case (supra), the

Apex Court included cases where there is abnormal

delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example,

over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without

satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay, as cases where

without registering FIR preliminary enquiry can be resorted

to. It is argued further that in the present case, the

publication of the book was in May, 2017 and Ext.P3

complaint was filed for the first time on 25.10.2019. After a

delay of more than 2 years, therefore the present case is one

covered by Clause (vi)(e) of Paragraph 111 of Lalitha

Kumari's case and therefore, the Police Officer is not

required to register FIR in the present crime and a

preliminary enquiry is legally permissible as per the ratio in

Lalitha Kumari's case.

9. While addressing the rival arguments, I am not

inclined to decide the question as to whether the procedure

adopted by the Investigating Officer to go for a preliminary

enquiry is right or not at this stage, since the grievance of the

petitioner as well as the 4th respondent could be addressed

by analysing the materials to find out whether commission of

offence punishable under Section 228A of IPC is made out,

warranting registration of FIR in the facts of the case.

10. On perusal of Ext.P2, the extract of page No.212 of

the book even though the name of the victim was referred

under a different name, the details of the parents of the

victim, the place where the victim and parents were resided

and later had been residing, the school where the victim

studied and had studied thereafter were disclosed in detail.

11. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent argued

that Ext.P2 in no way disclosed the identity of the victim,

Since 2010, the victim has been residing in Kottayam District

at a different place.

12. Coming to the elements to constitute offence

under Section 228A of IPC, it is profitable to refer 228A(1) of

IPC which is as under:-

228A. Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences etc.

1.Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Section 376,

section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA and section 376DB[1] is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

13. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent argued

that the offence under Section 228A would attract only when

there is printing or publishing the name or any matter which

would make known the identity of any person who

committed offence of rape. But such publication is

permissible by or with authorisation in writing of the victim,

in this context, it is worthwhile to refer the direction issued

by the Apex Court in Nipun Saxeena and another (supra)

and the said directions would hold the field in the matter of

printing or publishing by electronic social and other medias,

etc. the name and identity of a rape victim. Even otherwise,

no materials forthcoming to see that such authorisation as

contemplated in Sub-section (2)(b) and (c) of Section 228A

of IPC, was obtained prior to the book was published.

14. The learned Government Pleader supported

Ext.P7 order, whereby it was informed by the Commissioner

of Police to the petitioner that there is nothing available to

register a crime. In Paragraph No.8 of the statement filed by

the State in W.P.(C) No. 31667/2019, the contention is as

extracted hereinabove.

15. On perusal of Ext.P7 dated 05.03.2023 issued by

the Police Commissioner to the petitioner along with

Ext.R2(a) copy of preliminary enquiry final report filed by

Sri.Arunraj M.P., Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Cantonment Sub Division dated 28.02.2023, it has been

stated in Paragraph No.3 as under:-

"3. Whoever prints publishes any matter in relation to any proceedings before a court with

respect to an offence referred to in sub-section (1) without the previous permission of such court shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

To ascertain whether the allegation comes under the purview of Sec. 228A IPC, a legal opinion was sought from the Director General of Prosecution. In the legal opinion ".....the materials forwarded along with it do disclose an offence under section 228A IPC. On a careful perusal of the complaint and relevant pages of the alleged book in question, it is seen that the details are sufficient enough to identify a girl. But the copy of the truncated portion of the alleged book does not in clear term convey the fact that the girl is a victim of any of the offences mentioned in Section 228A of IPC except mere mentioning of "peedippikkapetta penkutti". True that in the complaint there is a positive assertion that the girl mentioned above is a victim of the offences

of rape. But the complainant cannot keep the Station House Officer guessing of anything or to ask him to take notice of anything in the air. If at all anything is there, it must be specific. If as a matter of fact it is discernible from the whole book in question that the girl mentioned above is a victim of any of the offences mentioned under Section 228A of IPC, it may attract an offence under Section 228A of IPC. Hence, it is for the investigating officer to verify/peruse the book in question in its entirety and to ascertain whether the girl mentioned above is a victim of any the offences mentioned under section 228A of IPC and proceed in accordance with law. I opine accordingly".

16. Ext.P8 filed in this writ petition is the legal opinion

given by Sri.T.A. Shaji, Director General of Prosecution and

the last page of the legal opinion, it has been opined as

under:-

"Now the question arises as to whether the complaint as well as the materials forwarded along with it do disclose an offence under Section 228A. On a careful perusal of the complaint and the relevant pages of the alleged book in question, it is seen that the details are sufficient enough to identify a girl. But the copy of the truncated portion of the alleged book does not in clear term convey the fact that the girl is a victim of any of the offences mentioned in Section 228A of IPC except mere mentioning of "peedippikkapetta penkutti". True that in the complaint there is a positive assertion that the girl mentioned above is a victim of the offences of rape. But the complainant cannot keep the Station House Officer guessing of anything or to ask him to take notice of anything in the air. If at all anything is there, it must be specific. If as a matter of fact it is discernible from the whole book in question that the girl mentioned above is a victim of any of the offences mentioned under Section 228A of IPC, it may attract an

offence under Section 228A of IPC. Hence, it is for the investigating officer to verify/peruse the book in question in its entirety and to ascertain whether the girl mentioned above is a victim of any the offences mentioned under section 228A of IPC and proceed in accordance with law. I opine accordingly".

17. On reading the legal opinion along with the

preliminary enquiry final report, the Assistant Commissioner

of Police as well as the learned Director General of

Prosecution found that on a careful perusal of the complaint

and the relevant pages of the alleged book in question, it is

seen that the details are sufficient enough to identify a girl.

But the book did not in clear terms convey the fact that the

said girl as a victim of the offences mentioned in Section

228A of IPC and the rationale for the said conclusion that

mere mentioning of "peedippikkapetta penkutti" in no way

disclose the girl as a victim of offences of rape.

18. On reading the preliminary enquiry final report

and the legal opinion, I have no hesitation to say that the

finding in the final report is an attempt to save the former

higher police official from the clutches of prosecution. As per

the preliminary enquiry final report and the legal opinion

given by the Director General of Prosecution, both of them

found that the details were sufficient enough to identify the

girl as "peedippikkapetta penkutti". When analysing the

Malayalam term "peedippikkapetta penkutti" the same means

a victim of 'sexual assault' or 'molestation' or 'rape' . So the

word would carry the offences dealt in Section 228A of IPC.

Apart from referring the girl as "peedippikkapetta penkutti",

her identity as a 'rape victim' is discernible from the book

itself otherwise.

19. In this regard, I have perused the relevant pages of

the book viz., Page Nos.209 to 211(Ext.P2). It is discernible

that in Page No.210 of the book, a news published in the

Malayala Manorama Daily, January, 1996 also incorporated in

bold letters with caption 'Advocate and others who

committed rape on the victim were arrested'. So reading the

book from page Nos.209, 210 and 211, one could easily get

the identity of the girl referred as "peedippikkapetta

penkutti" as a victim of rape covered by Section 228A of IPC.

Therefore, the preliminary enquiry final report found to be

without application of mind by the Investigating Officer and

the same is liable to be set aside.

20. Summarising the issue involved in this case, with

reference to the recitals in Ext.P2, no prudent man would say

that no offence under Section 228A of IPC is made out from

the materials. Contra finding recorded by the Investigating

Officer who conducted the preliminary enquiry is

unsustainable in law. Therefore, this case would require

investigation by registering FIR to find out the allegations of

Exts.P3 and P4 in tune with the mandate of Lalitha

Kumari's case (supra).

21. It is noticed that even though Exts.P3 and P4 were

lodged, the petitioner did not approach the Magistrate Court

seeking an investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. As

rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4 th

respondent, the decision of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State

of U.P. and Others [2008 (2) KHC 13], the Apex Court held

in Paragraph Nos.25, 27 and 28 as under:-

"25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under S.482 CrPC. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under S.154(3) and S.36 CrPC before the concerned police officers,

and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under S.156(3).

xxxx xxxx xxxx

27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under S.482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under S.36 and S.154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under S.156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under S.200 Cr.PC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under S.482 Cr.PC.

28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally

well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere."

22. In view of the decision reported in Don Paul v.

State of Kerala [2024 (3) KHC 617], it was held in

paragraphs 6 to 10 as under:-

"6. In paragraph 24 of the decision reported in Babu Venkatesh & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.'s case (supra), paragraphs 30 and 31 of the decision reported in (MANU / SC / 0344/2015 :

2015 (6) SCC 287) Priyanka Srivastava and anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. were referred as under:

"30: In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where S.156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the

allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.

31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under S.154(1) and S.154(3) while filing a petition under S.156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under S.156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is

made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under S.156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute / family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay / laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari (MANU / SC / 1166/2013 : 2014 (2) SCC 1 : 2014 (1)SCC (Cri.) 524) are being filed.

That apart, the learned Magistrate would also beaware of the delay in lodging of the FIR."

7. Finally, in paragraphs 25 to 28 of the decision reported in Babu Venkatesh &Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.'s case (supra) it was held as extractedherein above in paragraph 4.

8. In the latest decision reported in (2023 KHC 6519 : 2023 (4) KHC SN 3 : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396 : 2023 (3) KLT 431 : 2023 (2) KLJ 897 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 569)), Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri the Apex Court, after referring Priyanka Srivastava and anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.(supra), held that this Court highlighted abuse of the criminal process by the unprincipled and deviant litigants who do knock at the door of the criminal court for malevolent reasons. Reiterating Lalita Kumari (supra), it was observed that an action under S.156(3) should not be entertained without the complainant taking recourse to sub-section (1) and (3) of S.154 and compliance of these two Sections should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents filed. To check malevolence and false assertions, the Court directed that every petition / application under S.156(3) should be supported by an affidavit so that the person making an application should be conscious of it and to see that no false allegation is made. If the affidavit is found to be false, the

complainant will be liable for prosecution in accordance with the law. Vigilance is specially required in cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial / family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, or cases where there is abnormal delay / laches. Thus, the Magistrate must be attentive and proceed with perspicacity to examine the allegation made and the nature of those allegations. He should not issue directions without proper application of mind which would be contrary to the object and purpose of the Statute."

23. Therefore, the remedy of a person when his

grievance, by filing or informing materials which would

suggest a cognizable offence, if not acted upon by the Police

Officer and the Police Superintendent is normally to

approach the Magistrate seeking an investigation under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or else could approach the Magistrate

for an enquiry permitted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by filing a

private complaint.

However, it is well settled that the power of a

constitutional court to order investigation is not taken away

because of availability of alternative remedy in an

appropriate case of this nature where the accused is none

other than former DGP of the Kerala State. That apart, it is

perceivable that Exts.P3 and P4 complaints were filed by the

petitioner who worked along with the 4th respondent as

Deputy Superintendent of Police, on 25.10.2019 and on

06.11.2019, the complaints not properly acted upon the last

five years. Having noticed the above factual and legal

position, this writ petition stands disposed of as under:-

i) In view of the discussion held above, Ext.P7 found to be unsustainable in law and the same stands set aside.

ii) There shall a direction to the 3 rd respondent Station House Officer, Mannanthala Police Station to consider Ext.P3, where there is disclosure of a cognizable offence and to proceed forthwith,

following the ratio in Lalitha Kumari's Case (supra) at any rate, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

bpr

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 575/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COVER PAGE OF THE BOOK "NIRBHAYAM-ORU IPS OFFICERINTE ANUBHAVAKURUPU" ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PAGE CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF THE PRINTER AND PUBLISHER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGES 209 TO 212 OF THE BOOK "NIRBHAYAM-ORU IPS OFFICERINTE ANUBHAVAKURUPU", 2017 EDITION, PUBLISHED BY GREEN BOOK PRIVATE LIMITED, THRISSUR.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.10.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.11.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 20.01.2020 IN W.P(C).NO. 31667/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2022 IN W.P(C) NO. 31667/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 5/2018 DATED 11.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA REFERRED TO IN EXHIBIT P7.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit-R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE O.S.NO.192/2017 OF SUB COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Exhibit-R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ADDRESS DETAILS OF THE VICTIM IN JUDGMENT OF WPC.NO.8644 OF 2013 (E) DATED 12.04.2013 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.