Kerala High Court Orders Magistrate to Handle Case of Alleged Rape by Ponnani Police Officers.
The Kerala High Court has instructed the Magistrate to handle the case involving rape allegations against Ponnani Police Officers. This decision came during an Appeal that challenged a previous ruling by a Single Judge, which required the Magistrate to issue an Order within ten days. A Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu, stated, “After reviewing the situation, we believe it is important to correct the process and ensure the judicial proceedings are on the right track. Our concern lies more with the procedures used than with the actual claims. We recognize the seriousness of the allegations made by the Complainants, but this Appeal raises larger questions about the Magistrate’s independent authority. Thus, we feel it is necessary to step in.” Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate A. Kumar and Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) P. Narayanan represented the Respondents.
The Complainants, a housewife and her close friend, submitted a Complaint to the Judicial First Class Magistrate in Ponnani. They claimed that despite reporting the alleged rape to the Station House Officer (SHO) and District Police Chief (DPC), no FIR was filed. In September 2024, the Magistrate requested a report under Section 175(4)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), prompting the Complainants to file a Writ Petition, in which the Appellant was not involved.
The Single Judge requested a report from the Additional Police Superintendent about the actions taken and the reasons for wanting a preliminary inquiry in this case. The Judge also asked for a report from the Magistrate concerning the proceedings. After reviewing the Magistrate’s report, the Single Judge stated that Section 175(4) of the BNSS is not mandatory and instructed the Magistrate to issue an Order based on this legal declaration within ten days. Consequently, the Writ Petition was resolved, and this Order was contested in an Appeal to the High Court. The High Court noted, “The order from the learned Magistrate dated 24 October 2024 is on file. We have listened to the Senior Advocates for both sides regarding this matter. The order from the learned Magistrate, dated 24 October 2024, clearly follows the challenged judgment and cannot be considered as made with an independent thought process. Thus, if we annul the challenged judgment of the learned Single Judge for this reason, the order from the learned Magistrate, which is based on the learned Single Judge’s order, will also not stand.”
The Court stated that since it has determined that the Magistrate’s Order is merely a follow-up to the challenged judgment, it must be set aside. “We now need to decide whether to annul the order dated 24 October 2024 in this Appeal or allow the Appellant to pursue separate proceedings for it. If we choose the latter, we will need to extend the order preventing the filing of the FIR for a while to give the Appellant time to contest the order dated 24 October 2024,” it remarked.
The Court stated that the issue needs to progress quickly. It noted that if the Magistrate’s Order is not overturned, it will lead to more delays due to another round of litigation with the same outcome, which would also harm the Complainants. The Court pointed out that the method used in the disputed order was wrong, and it should not negatively affect the Petitioners. After careful consideration, the Court decided that the Magistrate’s order from October 24, 2024, should be canceled in this Appeal. As a result, the High Court approved the Appeal, annulled the contested Judgment, and instructed the Magistrate to evaluate the legal and factual matters without bias.
Cause Title: ABC v. XXXXXXXXXX (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:84446)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, Advocates N.M. Madhu, and C.S. Rajani.
Respondents: Senior Advocate A. Kumar and APP P. Narayanan.
