Back
Ansiba Hassan Faces Notice as Kerala High Court Examines Quash Plea in Row
on Monday issued notice to actress Ansiba Hassan in a petition filed by actor Lakshmi Priya and her husband Jayesh, who are seeking to quash a case registered on the basis of Hassan’s complaint. Justice Jobin Sebastian, presiding over the matter, directed that notice be served on Hassan, marking the next step in a legal battle that has drawn in the state police, ), and multiple judicial fora.
The case arises from an lodged at the in which Lakshmi Priya and Jayesh are arraigned as the first and second accused, along with a woman Sub-Inspector of the , as the third accused. The was registered pursuant to a filed by Hassan, who alleged that she was wrongfully confined, threatened, and forced to sign a during a proceeding at in .
Allegations of Intimidation and
According to Hassan’s complaint, the Sub-Inspector summoned her to in connection with a complaint earlier filed by Lakshmi Priya, who had alleged that Hassan sent her messages disrupting her family life. Hassan claimed that she was made to wait for about an hour on 31 before being called into the officer’s cabin for questioning. During the interrogation, she alleged, the officer threatened to put her in jail and register a criminal case against her.
The complaint further states that Lakshmi Priya arrived at the cell during the questioning and, in the presence of the officer, questioned Hassan and attempted to force her to apologise to Jayesh over the phone. It is also alleged that Hassan was compelled to sign documents stating that the dispute between the actors had been amicably settled. Based on these allegations, the accused have been booked under multiple provisions of the , including Sections 127(2) (), 198, 199(a), 199(b), 201, 217(b), 336 (), 351 (), and 61 (), as well as , which penalises illegal seizure, detention, search, or arrest causing annoyance without reasonable cause.
Petitioners’ Contentions
Lakshmi Priya and Jayesh have moved the High Court contending that the allegations are false and do not disclose any criminal offence. They argue that Hassan’s grievance is primarily directed against the woman police officer (the third accused) who officially intervened in a genuine complaint initiated by Lakshmi Priya. The petition emphasises that Hassan voluntarily participated in the proceedings and executed her signature on the .
“From the averments it can be presumed that R2 [Hassan] had voluntarily participated in the proceedings and executed her signature in the . She is now carried away by certain developments, decisions and disciplinary actions taken in organization and carving out the present case without any legal basis,” the plea states.
The petitioners also highlight a considerable delay of around five months in preferring the complaint, arguing that no specific has been made out against them. They further point out that Hassan has subsequently taken her grievances to and raised allegations against other members of the film body, suggesting that the criminal complaint is a motivated by internal disputes.
Broader Dispute
This case is part of a larger web of legal proceedings involving Hassan and other members of the Malayalam film industry. Notably, , recently ordered a police probe against Lakshmi Priya and two representatives of based on another by Hassan, accusing them of making sexually coloured remarks and circulating objectionable content.
In a separate matter, , directed the to register an on Hassan’s complaint against actor Tini Tom, alleging that he abused her with words including “Jihadi”. These parallel proceedings underscore the fractious atmosphere within and the growing use of criminal complaints to address interpersonal disputes in the film industry.
Legal Implications and Court’s Approach
The High Court’s decision to issue notice indicates that it has found sufficient merit in the to warrant a response from Hassan. While the court has not yet made any observations on the merits, the petitioners’ arguments—centering on , delay, and lack of specific overt acts—raise familiar grounds for under the . Legal professionals will note that the inclusion of provisions such as Section 336 () and Section 351 () in the may be challenged if the allegations fail to satisfy the of those offences.
The case also highlights the delicate balance between a citizen’s right to seek redress through criminal process and the need to prevent , particularly when internal organisational disputes are reframed as criminal matters. The delay in filing the complaint could be a significant factor, as often undermine the credibility of allegations. Moreover, the alleged involvement of a police officer in forcing a settlement raises serious questions about the conduct of , which may come under judicial scrutiny.
Conclusion
As takes up this , the legal community will watch closely for any observations that may clarify the boundaries of and in the context of . The case also serves as a reminder that film industry rivalries can spill into courtrooms, testing the limits of criminal law. With notice now issued to Ansiba Hassan, the matter is set for further arguments, and a decision on the quash plea is awaited. For now, the High Court has signalled that it is prepared to examine the veracity of the allegations and the legality of the .
(Note: This article is based on publicly available court records and reports. The views expressed are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.)
