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.
Source: Barandbench
