An Ernakulam trial court has instructed the Kadavanthara police to file a First Information Report (FIR) and conduct an investigation based on a private complaint by actress Ansiba Hassan against actor Tini Tom. The complaint alleges that Tom made derogatory statements about Hassan, including calling her a ‘jihadi’ and suggesting issues with her DNA, during a speech at the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) office. This case is recorded as Ansiba Hassan v. Tiny Tom & Anr.
Ansiba Hassan, known for her role in the ‘Drishyam’ film series, approached the judicial magistrate first class court in Ernakulam after the police initially refused to register a criminal case regarding the matter. On Tuesday, Judge Kavya Soman remarked that the accusations pertain to offenses such as outraging the modesty of women, sexual harassment, and outraging religious feelings, under Sections 74, 75(iv), 79, 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act, which deals with punishment for atrocities against women.
The court noted that the evidence provided suggested the occurrence of the alleged offenses, warranting an investigation. Judge Soman stated, “Whether there was criminal intent or not could only be determined after the collection of all evidence. Prima facie, there is an element of a cognizable offense committed against the complainant by the respondent, and the same needs investigation.”
Prior to this, the magistrate had requested a report from the police to decide on further action. During the review of this report, the magistrate found that witness Neena Kurup had mentioned hearing Tom make derogatory comments about Hassan at the AMMA office in Kaloor. Kurup claimed that former AMMA president, actress Swetha Menon, also overheard Tom’s remarks. However, the court observed that the police report lacked clarity on whether Swetha Menon was questioned or had confirmed these statements. This omission left a critical part of the inquiry incomplete.
Moreover, the police report indicated that Tom referred to Hassan with expressions such as ‘double daddy syndrome’ and ‘issue with DNA.’ Although the police had initially concluded these remarks were made jokingly and lacked criminal intent, the magistrate emphasized that such a judgment could not be made without thorough investigation. “Only after conducting a detailed investigation can a proper conclusion in this matter be reached,” the court asserted.
The court also addressed jurisdictional concerns, asserting that if it is discovered that another police station holds territorial jurisdiction during the investigation, the case can be legally transferred to the appropriate station. Advocates Muhammed Firdouz AV and Libin Varghese appeared on behalf of Ansiba Hassan.
[Read Order]
