Sooryanelli Rape: Kerala High Court orders FIR against retired DGP for revealing victim’s identity in his book

The Kerala High Court recently directed the State police to proceed against retired Director General of Police (DGP) Siby Mathews for allegedly disclosing a rape victim’s identity in his book titled 'Nirbhayam'. [KK Joshwa v State of Kerala & Ors].Justice A Badharudeen opined that registration of FIR would be necessary in the case as the details revealed in the book were sufficient to identify the victim which is punishable under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prohibits publishing information that could reveal the identity of a rape victim."Even though the name of the victim was not specifically disclosed, the details of the parents of the victim, the place where the victim and parents resided, the school where the victim studied, were disclosed in detail. This disclosure prima facie shows commission of offence punishable under Section 228A of the IPC," the Court stated.It, therefore directed the State police authorities to consider the issue and if they find any cognisable offence, register an FIR in line with the Supreme Court’s directives in the 2013 judgment of Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Others. "Summarising the issue involved in this case, with reference to the recitals in Ext.P2, no prudent man would say that no offence under Section 228A of IPC is made out from the materials. Contra finding recorded by the Investigating Officer who conducted the preliminary enquiry is unsustainable in law. Therefore, this case would require investigation by registering FIR to find out the allegations of Exts.P3 and P4 in tune with the mandate of Lalitha Kumari's case," the Court held..The petitioner KK Joshwa had lodged complaints with the Mannanthala Police Station and the District Police Chief in Thiruvananthapuram, urging them to register FIR against Mathews who had disclosed identifiable information about the victim of the 1996 Sooryanelli rape case in his memoir "Nirbhayam".Dissatisfied with the police's inaction, he approached the High Court, which then directed the authorities to consider his complaints. However, the Commissioner of Police responded that no further action would be taken, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court again seeking directions to the Police to register FIR..The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the details such as the victims parents’ names, residence, and other personal information in the book were sufficient to identify the victim, thereby violating Section 228A of the IPC.The petitioner also highlighted the Supreme Court’s directives in Lalitha Kumari which mandated registration of FIR upon receiving information about cognizable offences.He submitted that a prima facie case was made out in the present case compelling registration of crime against Mathews..The counsel for Mathews contended that a delay of over two years in filing the complaint warranted only a preliminary inquiry and not immediate FIR registration.He submitted that the book was published in May 2017 while the complaint was filed only in October 2019, thus necessitating a preliminary inquiry only..The Court after going through the submissions observed that the book's contents disclosed sufficient details to identify the victim, violating Section 228A IPC. “The reference to the victim as ‘peedippikkapetta penkutti’ (molested girl) alongside detailed personal information unmistakably identifies her as the rape victim mentioned in the book,” the Court said. The Court criticised the preliminary enquiry report and legal opinions for attempting to shield Mathews from prosecution.It concluded that the materials presented warranted FIR registration of FIR for the offence under Section 228A.It also held that High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to order investigation even if alternative remedy is available under Section 156(3) (police officer's power to investigate cognisable case) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)."Therefore, the remedy of a person when his grievance, by filing or informing materials which would suggest a cognizable offence, if not acted upon by the Police Officer and the Police Superintendent is normally to approach the Magistrate seeking an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or else could approach the Magistrate for an enquiry permitted under Section 202 CrPC by filing a private complaint. However, it is well settled that the power of a constitutional court to order investigation is not taken away because of availability of alternative remedy in an appropriate case of this nature where the accused is none other than former DGP of the Kerala State", the Court added..Hence, the Court directed the police to consider the complaint filed by Joshwa within seven days."There shall a direction to the 3rd respondent Station House Officer, Mannanthala Police Station to consider Ext.P3, where there is disclosure of a cognizable offence and to proceed forthwith following the ratio in Lalitha Kumari's Case at any rate, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment," the Court ordered..The petitioner was represented by advocate Nandagopal S Kurup and Abhiram TK.Advocate M Baiju Noel appeared for Siby Mathews.Government Pleader Nima Jacob represented the State. .[Read Judgment]