Kerala High Court Directs Reconsideration of FIR Plea
In a significant development, the Kerala High Court has instructed a trial court to revisit Malayalam actress Ansiba Hassan’s request for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against fellow actress Lakshmi Priya and two representatives of the online media platform, Can Channel Media. This directive was issued on Monday in the case Ansiba Hassan v State of Kerala & ors.
Allegations of Defamation and Sexual Harassment
The controversy stems from a video interview given by Lakshmi Priya to Can Channel, which was widely circulated on social media. Hassan alleges that the interview contained remarks of a sexual nature intended to tarnish her reputation and outrage her modesty. She argued that these comments, along with the dissemination of the video, constituted cognizable criminal offenses.
Previously, on July 27, the Judicial First Class Magistrate in Ernakulam had rejected Hassan’s plea to order an FIR. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Hassan appealed to the High Court.
High Court’s Ruling
Justice Jobin Sebastian, presiding over the matter, has now remitted the case back to the trial court for further consideration. The High Court emphasized the need for the Magistrate to independently assess the allegations in the complaint and the accompanying evidence. “The Magistrate shall independently examine the allegations contained in the complaint and the material available on record and determine, in accordance with law, whether the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognisable offence and, if so, whether the circumstances warrant a direction for police investigation,” the court ordered.
Legal Context and Implications
The case has its roots in a public fallout between Lakshmi Priya and Ansiba Hassan. Hassan’s complaint implicates Lakshmi Priya, along with Can Channel Media’s owner Sukumar and interviewer Suresh, accusing them of portraying her as a woman of questionable character. She cited violations under Sections 75(iv) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which pertain to sexual harassment and outraging the modesty of a woman, respectively. Additionally, she referenced Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for publishing obscene and sexually explicit material online, and Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, concerning atrocities against women.
More Read
Initially, the police report found no grounds for a cognizable offense, recommending that Hassan pursue a private defamation complaint instead. The Magistrate’s acceptance of this report led to the dismissal of her plea for an FIR, prompting her to seek intervention from the High Court through advocates Muhammed Firdouz AV and Gentle CD.
Previous Related Incidents
In a related incident, a magistrate had previously ordered an FIR against actor Tini Tom based on a complaint by Hassan. This complaint alleged derogatory remarks made by Tom against her during a meeting of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA).
