Kerala High Court Upholds Order Directing FIR Against Three Police Officers In Ponnani Rape Case

The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 17) dismissed the plea preferred by three police officers challenging a Magistrate order directing registration of FIR against them in relation to the Ponnani rape case. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 380]Justice Jobin Sebastian today upheld the order of the Magistrate, which had acted upon a private complaint preferred by a lady.In September 2024, the complainant had lodged a complaint before the SHO Ponnani alleging that she was subjected to rape by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ponnani the DySP, Tirur and the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram.As per the complaint, it is stated that in 2022, when she approached the CI to lodge another complaint on a dispute relating to her house, he had assured that he would arrive there to look into the issue. However, he contacted her at around 10 pm that day and came to her house, where he raped her in the bedroom. Later, the DySP and SP also committed sexual assault and rape against her. Aggrieved, she had approached the JFCM, Ponnani by preferring a private complaint.After considering the complaint, the Magistrate called for report from the superior officer of the petitioners as per Section 175(4) of the BNSS. At this juncture, they approached the High Court in another proceeding contending that their alleged act does not fall within "course of discharge of their official duty" and therefore, the Magistrate ought to have forwarded the complaint for investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS instead.The afore plea was disposed of by a coordinate Single Bench holding that the alleged act does not fall within "discharge of official duty" and directing the Magistrate to pass orders of the complaint as per law. According, the Magistrate passed an order to register an FIR. The petitioners then appealed before the Division Bench, and the same was allowed, setting aside the orders of the Magistrate and the Single Judge. The Division Bench also directed the Magistrate to decide the matter uninfluenced by the High Court orders.The Division Bench's order was challenged in the Supreme Court by the complainant but the same was dismissed, with a direction to the Magistrate to hear the parties and pass orders. Subsequently, the Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the SHO Ponnani for investigation. At this juncture, the petitioners preferred the above plea.Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar appearing for the petitioners had contended that the Magistrate failed to comply with Section 175(4) of the BNSS and there was a mandate to call for a report from their superior officers.While considering the first contention, the Court examined Section 175 and clarified that the requirement under sub-section (4) is not attracted in every case but only where the complaint act arose in the course of discharge of official duties.Next, looking at the facts of the case, the Court added:"In the case at hand, the specific allegations contained in the private complaint are that the petitioners, police officers, committed rape and subjected the complainant to sexual assault and molestation when she approached them for redressal of her grievances. If the allegations are taken at their face value, solely for the purpose of deciding the applicability of Section 175(4) of BNSS, it is impossible to hold that such acts bear any reasonable nexus with the discharge of the official duties of police officers...In the present case, the learned Magistrate has, in unequivocal terms, held that the allegations of rape and sexual assault are wholly alien to the discharge of official duties and that Section 175(4) of the BNSS is, therefore, inapplicable. The said finding warrants no interference at this stage."Another contention raised by the petitioners was that the private complaint was not accompanied by an affidavit sworn in accordance with Section 333 BNSS, requiring swearing before judge, judicial magistrate, notaries, etc., as mandate by the Apex Court in the complainant's appeal.To decide this issue, the Court also examined Rule 40 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, which permits swearing of affidavits before an advocate also. It further looked into the judgment of the Apex Court. It noted that the Apex Court was not called upon to examine the interplay between Section 333 and Rule 40 and therefore, this aspect was not dealt with in its judgment. It added that the legislative intent behind insisting upon an affidavit is to prevent frivolous complaints and ensure authenticity of allegations, which are satisfied with Rule 40."the mischief sought to be prevented by the requirement of an affidavit, namely, frivolous and reckless invocation of the criminal process, stands effectively addressed. The provision contained in Rule 40 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, is not in conflict with Section 333 of the BNSS, rather, it supplements the said provision. It is equally important to note that the petitioners failed to show that any prejudice has resulted merely because the...

Kerala High Court Upholds Order Directing FIR Against Three Police Officers In Ponnani Rape Case

K. Salma Jennath

Rape allegations against police officers are not protected by BNSS safeguards for acts done in official duty, Court held.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

Kerala High Court Upholds Order Directing FIR Against Three Police Officers In Ponnani Rape Case

K. Salma Jennath

Rape allegations against police officers are not protected by BNSS safeguards for acts done in official duty, Court held.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers