The single judge’s ruling was passed on a petition moved by one KK Joshwa who had previously submitted representations to the police alleging that Mathews had revealed the identity of the survivor.
Dissatisfied with the police’s inaction, he approached the High Court in 2019. At the time, the High Court had directed the authorities to consider his complaints.
However, the Commissioner of Police, after a preliminary enquiry, informed Joshwa that no further action would be taken, prompting Joshua to approach the High Court once again.
On June 6, the single judge allowed Joshwa’s petition and quashed the Commissioner’s response. The single judge directed the police to consider Joshwa’s representation and to register an FIR as per the Lalitha Kumari guidelines if any cognisable offence is found.
Mathews challenged the single-judge ruling, asserting that it was wrong in law and unsustainable.
In his appeal, Mathews contended that neither the survivor nor her parents had any issues with the publication of the book.
Mathews added that Joshwa, who cannot claim to be affected by the book, could not have approached the High Court in the matter.
He also submitted that Joshwa was a police officer who was part of the team investigating the rape case and who had an axe to grind with him (Mathews).
Further, Mathews argued that even if the allegations made out a cognisable offence, the singe judge should not have ordered the registration of an FIR.
Source: Barandbench
