Court emphasizes the mandatory nature of FIR registration for cognizable offences while reinforcing the availability of alternate legal remedies under criminal procedure.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

------------------------------------- ------------------------------------

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2019 J U D G M E N T The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

"

a) Direct the 4^th respondent to take action in Exhibit P-1 complaint and take action against the 5^th respondent by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.

b) Direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondent to consitute a special investigation team to conduct investigation and take action in Exhibit P-1 complaint and report the progress of the investigation to this Hon'ble Court by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.

c) Order an investigation in Exhibit P-1 complaint monitored by this Hon'ble Court by the issue of appropriate writ or order or direction. "

2. Heard Sri.R.Krishna Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, learned Prosecutor appearing for official respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to contesting respondent No.5 will stand dispensed with.

3. The complaint voiced by the petitioner is that he has filed a petition before the 4^th respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Pathanamthitta Police Station, alleging commission of offences u/s 295A, 298, 294, 354A of the IPC r/w Sec.119A of the Kerala Police Act by the 5^th respondent through her speech made on

9.10.2018, wherein she has stated that the custom that is prevalent in the Hindu Temples, insisting women devotees to take a dip in the pond before entering the temple was intended to enable the men to enjoy the body of women in the wet dress. The 4^th respondent has refused to take any action in the matter. Further that, though the petitioner have approached the Superior Police Officers concerned pointing out the refusal on the part of the 4^th respondent to take action in the complaint filed by the petitioner, they have not taken any action in the matter so far.

4. It is averred in Ext.P-1 petition dated 17.10.2018 that, the abovesaid speech is said to have been made by the 5^th respondent on 9.10.2018 in a public meeting of the Janathipathiya Mahila Association, etc.

5. It is further pointed out that, since no action was taken by the 4^th respondent on Ext.P-1 petition, the petitioner has filed another petition before the 3^rd respondent Superintendent of Police in the Office of the Director Police Chief, Pathanamthitta, pointing out the above inaction of the 4^th respondent and requesting for action on the matters raised in Ext.P-1 petition, etc. Though it is stated in the WP(C) that the petition said to have been filed before the 3^rd respondent is Ext.P-2, a perusal of Ext.P-2 as produced in the above WP(C) show that Ext.P-2 is the same as Ext.P-1. The petitioner would point out that Exhibits P-2 and P-3 would show that he has dispatched the abovesaid petitions to the respondent authorities concerned. Since no further action was forthcoming from the respondents, the petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act to know the outcome of the matter and that he has now been informed as per Ext.P-3 letter dated 22.12.2018 issued by the State Public Information Officer attached to the 3^rd respondent Office of the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta, that the petition has been duly received and is being enquired into and that the legal advice of the District Director of Prosecution has also been sought in the matter, etc. The petitioner would point out that, since the factual aspects alleged in Ext.P-1 petition discloses cognizable offences, it is the statutory duty of the 4^th respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Pathana