IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory registration of FIR for a cognizable offence, the necessity to protect the identity of victims of sexual offences, and the requirement for proper investigation as per the directions issued by the Apex Court.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

(I) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P7 passed by the second respondent, in the interest of justice.

(II) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the third respondent to consider Exhibit P3 complaint and register a First Information Report at the Mannanthala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, in the interest of justice.

(III) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the first respondent to take appropriate departmental action as against the second and third respondents, in accordance with the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 111(iv) of the judgement in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. 2014 (2) SCC 1, for willfully not registering the FIR on Exhibit P3 and P4 complaints, in the interest of justice.

(IV) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the additional 4th respondent, who is arrayed as the respondent in Exts.P3 and P4 complaints filed by the petitioner.

3. The crux of the case is centered on publication of Ext.P2 - a book by name ‘Nirbhayam’ written by the 4th respondent and published by Green Books, Thrissur run by the 2nd accused as the Managing Editor. The specific case of the petitioner, as espoused in Ext.P3 filed before the Station House Officer, Mannathala Police Station and Ext.P4 filed before the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram is that in Page Nos. 209 to 227 of the book by name ‘Nirbhayam’ a chapter of having caption “Sooryanelli Case” is incorporated which relates to the rape of a minor girl by number of accused persons during 1996. The specific allegation is that in the above said book, the author of the book revealed the identity of the rape victim with exact details though her name was not specifically disclosed. It is alleged that in the book, names, address and all the details of the parents of the victim disclosed with certainty and thereby the 4th respondent committed an offence punishable under Section 228A of IPC providing imprisonment for a period upto two years and shall also liable to fine. Accordingly, Ext.P3 complaint was filed before the Station House Officer and Ext.P4 before the District Police Chief. Ext.P2 produced in this writ petition, is the exact page of the said book containing the recitals that would disclose the identity of the rape victim, as per the contentions raised by the writ petitioner.

4. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the proceedings after filing of Exts.P3 and P4, he approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 31667/2019 and this Court passed an order on 15.12.2022 to consider Exts.P3 and P4 (Exts.P5 and P7 in the above writ petition). As per the directions issued by this Court, Ext.P7 communication was given to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, stating that it was decided not to take any further action on Exts.P3 and P4 as found by the Investigating Officer.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, even as per the counter statement filed by the State in W.P. (C) No. 31667/2019, a copy of the same has been placed as Ext.P5, in Paragraph No. 8, it is admitted that, “during the course of enquiry, statement of victim’s father, XXX (name not disclosed) was recorded. As per the statement, it is revealed that the name, place and occupation of the parents of the Sooryanelli victim are same as mentioned in the book named Nirbhayam.”

6. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the prosecution admitted materials warranting registration of a crime for the offence punishable under Section 228A of IPC, but shockingly, Ext.P7 communication was giv