Kerala High Court Quashes Obscenity FIR Against Actor Shwetha Menon, Says Complaint Filed To 'Tarnish' Her Reputation

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (March 11) quashed all further proceedings in the FIR and private complaint lodged against Malayalam actor Shwetha Menon for allegedly acting in movies and advertisements containing obscene and vulgar visuals.Justice C.S. Dias was considering a plea by the actor seeking to quash all further proceedings against her prusuant to the complaint and FIR. The Court held:"After carefully analysing the allegations in complaint and the allegations in the FIR...even if the allegations are taken on their face value, the same would not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner (Shwetha Menon) and further, that the complaint has been filed with the ulterior motive of tarnishing the name and reputation of the petitioner, who does not have any such criminal antecedents, and the complaint is with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the petitioner out of a personal grudge, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS."The FIR was registered by the Ernakulam Police in August 2025 against the actor for offences under Section 67A (publishing of material containing sexually explicit act in electronic form) of the Information Technology (IT) Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act.It was lodged following an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on a complaint filed by one Martin Menanchery. It has been alleged that the actor, with the intention of securing monetary gain, appeared in several films and advertisements, which according to the complainant, contain obscene visuals, which are available on the public domain and the same are obscene and vulgar. The petitioner has secured monetary benefits from such acting, which attract the above offences.Earlier, the Court had granted an interim stay against further proceedings. When the matter came up today, the Court heard the counsel representing Menon as well as the prosecution. Although the complainant was served notice, he did not appear.The counsel appearing for Menon argued that even if the allegations in the complaint and FIR are taken on face value, the same cannot attract the offences alleged. He also contended that the above complaint is totally frivolous and filed with the oblique intention of preventing Menon from contesting the elections to the post of President of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists, which was held in 15.8.2025. Further, it was argued that the complainant intended to malign and defame the actor, which fact becomes clear that taking note of the fact that the complaint was filed just before the elections. It was also pointed out that the actor is a lady of high repute and is living happily with her family.The prosecution did not seriously oppose the plea but submitted that the investigation is in the nascent stage and the Court may not conduct a mini trial and quash the proceedings.The Court perused the report submitted by the Magistrate, so as to ascertain the procedure that was adopted for forwarding the complaint to the police for investigation. The Magistrate had reported that since there is an allegation of child pornography in the complaint against Menon, which itself is an offence that can only be investigated by the police and the scope of inquiry by the court was limited, the Magistrate forwarded the complaints to the investigating officer. The Magistrate was guided by the submission of the investigating officer that a detailed investigation was necessary in order to look into the aspect of child pornography. Noting that the specific case against the actor made out in the complaint was that she committed the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act and Section 67A of the IT Act, the Court referred to the above provisions. It was of the opinion that the offences under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act are not attracted from the allegation in the complaint: "A plain reading of Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 shows that an accused is liable to punishment for running a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel and should procure, induce or take any person for the sake of prosecution. Going by the allegations in the complaint, the 2nd respondent (complainant) does not have a case that the petitioner was running a brothel or have procured, induced or taken any person for the sake for prostitution. All that he states is that the petitioner is featuring on various websites in obscene and vulgar manner. Thus, I am satisfied that the above offences are not attracted on the basis of the allegations in the complaint.""A plain reading of Section 67A of the IT Act shows that only if a person publishes, transmits or cause to be published or transmit, in electronic form, any sexual explicit act or content, is liable for the above offence. Going by the allegation in the complaint received, the second respondent has gone into...

Kerala High Court Quashes Obscenity FIR Against Actor Shwetha Menon, Says Complaint Filed To 'Tarnish' Her Reputation

K. Salma Jennath

Tags