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

W.P.(C) No. 5562 / 2019

..3..

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

W.P.(C) No. 5562 / 2019

..4..

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

W.P.(C) No. 5562 / 2019

..5..

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,

Pathanamthitta, to register a crime and then proceed with the

matter of investigation as mandated in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, and further that the 4^th respondent is thu