Kochi, Nov 13 (PTI) The Kerala High Court on Wednesday quashed a magisterial court order directing registration of a case against some police officials in Malappuram district on a sexual assault complaint filed by a housewife.
A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu allowed an appeal filed by Vinod Valiyatoor, one of the accused police officers in the complaint, challenging the October 18 decision of the single judge which allegedly forced the magisterial court to order registration of an FIR.
The High Court was of the view that the October 18 order of the single judge influenced the magisterial court on October 24 to direct registration of an FIR against the police officers.
The bench also quashed the October 24 order of the magisterial court.
The complainant housewife, along with a close friend, had approached the magisterial court after local police failed to register an FIR in response to their complaint of rape.
According to the two women, despite submitting multiple complaints to the Station House Officer and the District Police Chief, Malappuram, no FIR was registered.
In their plea before the lower court, they sought a directive to the police to file an FIR and investigate the allegations.
When the magisterial court initially called for a report from the police under section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the women moved the High Court seeking lodging of an FIR against the police officers.
Section 175(4) of the BNSS states that upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, the magisterial court can order investigation after calling for a report regarding the circumstances that led to the complaint.
The complainant women also urged the High Court to ensure that statements from witnesses were recorded only after the FIR was registered, in compliance with Supreme Court guidelines.
Furthermore, they had also sought a ruling that immunity provided under section 175(4) of BNSS shall not be extended to crimes committed by a public servant that are unrelated to their official duties.
The single judge, while hearing the women's plea, on September 13, called for a report from the magisterial court explaining its initial decision under section 175(4) of BNSS.
The division bench noted that on receiving the report from the magisterial court, the single judge ordered that section 175(4) of the BNSS was not mandatory and directed the lower court to pass an order as per this declaration of law within ten days.
The High Court, on Wednesday, acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations by the women, but also expressed concern over the procedural lapses in the single judge's direction.
The High Court noted that the magisterial court's order, passed on October 24, appeared to be influenced by the single judge's earlier directions and was therefore, not an independent decision.
It further stated that the magisterial court had been compelled to alter his course of action due to judicial pressure, and as a result, the order passed on October 24 was quashed.
The court emphasised that the case should now proceed based on its legal merits, and the magisterial court was directed to reconsider the matter afresh without any external influence.