Kerala High Court Upholds FIR Order Against Police Officers
The Kerala High Court has upheld a magistrate’s directive to file a First Information Report (FIR) against three senior police officers in the controversial Ponnani rape case. This decision was made in the case titled Vinod Valiyattoor & ors v State of Kerala & anr. Justice Jobin Sebastian presided over the matter and found no procedural errors in the magistrate’s actions.
In his judgment, Justice Sebastian stated, “For the foregoing reason, I find no ground warranting interference with the order impugned in this criminal miscellaneous case.” He also questioned why the police had not complied with the magistrate’s order to register an FIR, emphasizing that the legality of the order could be reviewed, but this did not justify ignoring the directive to investigate.
Police Accountability and Compliance
During the proceedings, Justice Sebastian posed a critical question regarding police compliance: “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.” He expressed concern over the Director General of Police’s stance on the issue.
The case was brought before the High Court by the accused officers: Superintendent of Police Sujith Das, Deputy Superintendent of Police VV Benny, and Circle Inspector Vinod Valiyattoor. They sought to quash the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s order from Ponnani, which had instructed the Station House Officer to register an FIR against them based on a complaint alleging rape and sexual assault.
Allegations and Legal Arguments
The officers contended that the accusations were baseless, malicious, and intended to retaliate against them for their official duties. They argued that the magistrate had not thoroughly evaluated whether the allegations were made in bad faith or as a means to pressure the officers into certain actions. The petitioners referenced Sections 175(3) and 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which protect public servants from unfounded prosecutions, arguing that these safeguards were not adequately considered.
More Read
The petition highlighted multiple complaints from the de-facto complainant since 2022, claiming that departmental investigations had dismissed these allegations as false or motivated. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had previously emphasized the necessity of adhering to Section 175 BNSS procedures before forwarding such complaints for investigation.
Legal Representation and Outcome
Despite these arguments, the High Court upheld the magistrate’s July 9 order for FIR registration. Senior counsel S Sreekumar, along with a team of advocates, represented the officers, while 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.
The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s stance on procedural compliance and accountability within the police force, ensuring that serious allegations are investigated thoroughly, irrespective of the accused’s official status.
