Ponnani rape case: Kerala HC upholds order directing FIR against three cops

The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed petitions filed by three police officers challenging a Judicial First Class Magistrate's order directing the registration of an FIR against them in connection with the Ponnani rape case. Justice Jobin Sebastian upheld the Magistrate's order, observing that there were no procedural irregularities warranting interference.

The case stems from a complaint filed by a woman, who alleged that she was sexually assaulted by the then Circle Inspector of Police, Ponnani, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirur, and the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram.

According to the complaint, the alleged incident happened in 2022 when the woman approached the Circle Inspector to seek police intervention in a dispute related to her house. The officer allegedly told her he would visit the property, but instead arrived at her residence around 10 pm and raped her. She further alleged that the DySP and the SP also later sexually assaulted and raped her.

In September 2024, the woman lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Ponnani. She subsequently approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani, by filing a private complaint.

The Magistrate initially sought a report from the petitioners' superior officer under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The officers then approached the High Court, arguing that the alleged acts did not arise during the discharge of their official duties and that the Magistrate should instead have forwarded the complaint for investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

A single judge held that the allegations were unrelated to the discharge of official duties and directed the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with the law. The Magistrate then ordered the registration of an FIR.

The officers challenged that order before a Division Bench, which set aside both the Magistrate's order and the single judge's ruling, directing the Magistrate to reconsider the matter independently, without being influenced by the High Court's earlier observations.

The complainant challenged the Division Bench's decision before the Supreme Court. While dismissing her appeal, the apex court directed the Magistrate to hear all parties and pass fresh orders. Following the hearing, the Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Ponnani, for investigation, prompting the officers to file the present petitions.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate S Sreekumar argued that the Magistrate had failed to comply with Section 175(4) of the BNSS, which, according to the officers, required a report from their superior authorities before any further action.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that the requirement under Section 175(4) applies only when the alleged act is committed in the course of official duty. Since the allegations in the present case did not arise from the discharge of official functions, the provision was not attracted.

The officers also contended that the private complaint was not supported by an affidavit sworn in accordance with Section 333 of the BNSS, as directed by the Supreme Court. The High Court examined Rule 40 of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice, which permits affidavits to be sworn before an advocate, and noted that the Supreme Court had not considered the interplay between Rule 40 and Section 333 in its earlier judgment.

The court observed that the purpose of insisting on an affidavit is to prevent frivolous complaints and ensure the authenticity of allegations, and that the affidavit filed by the complainant satisfied that objective. Finding no procedural infirmity in the Magistrate's order, the High Court dismissed the petitions, allowing the investigation to proceed.
(With LiveLaw inputs)