Kerala High Court Refuses to Direct FIR Registration for Ansiba Hassan

• Ansiba Hassan, a Malayalam actress, has moved the Kerala High Court seeking FIR registration against Lakshmi Priya over sexually coloured remarks.
• The trial court had earlier refused to direct registration of an FIR, citing that the matter can proceed as a private complaint instead.
• Hassan is challenging this decision, arguing that it goes against the statutory scheme of the BNSS and Supreme Court decisions.
• The case revolves around Section 175(3) of the BNSS, which empowers magistrates to direct police registration of an FIR in cases where cognisable offences are disclosed but where the police earlier refused to register a case.

Hassan has contended that Lakshmipriya's comments and the circulation of such content disclose the commission of cognisable criminal offences.

Malayalam actress Ansiba Hassan has taken her complaint against Lakshmi Priya and two representatives of Can Channel Media to the Kerala High Court. The court's intervention comes after a trial court in Ernakulam refused to direct registration of an FIR on Hassan's complaint, citing that the matter can proceed as a private complaint instead.

Hassan had initially approached the trial court with allegations that Lakshmipriya made sexually coloured remarks against her in a video interview circulated on social media. She contended that these comments and the circulation of such content disclose cognisable criminal offences. However, the trial court declined to invoke its powers under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers magistrates to direct police registration of an FIR in such cases.

The trial court's decision has been challenged by Hassan, who argues that it goes against the statutory scheme of the BNSS and Supreme Court decisions. She is seeking direction from the Kerala High Court for the registration of an FIR.

The case revolves around Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which grants magistrates the power to direct police registration of an FIR if a cognisable offence is disclosed but where the police earlier refused to register a case. This provision aims to ensure that victims of crimes receive justice, even when the police initially fail to act.

The BNSS's statutory scheme and Supreme Court decisions support Hassan's contention that the trial court erred in declining to invoke its powers under Section 175(3). The BNSS is designed to provide a safeguard against police inaction in cases where cognisable offences are disclosed. By challenging the trial court's decision, Hassan is seeking to uphold this statutory scheme and ensure that justice is served.

The implications of this case extend beyond Hassan's individual complaint, as it may have broader implications for defamation and reputation management cases in India.

This case has significant implications for lawyers advising clients on defamation or reputation management. The Kerala High Court's ruling may limit the ability to compel police registration of FIRs under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, which could impact the effectiveness of private complaint proceedings in India.

The outcome of this case will be closely watched by legal professionals and experts in the field of defamation and reputation management. It has the potential to shape the landscape of private complaint proceedings in India and may influence how lawyers approach similar cases in the future.

Lawyers advising clients on defamation or reputation management should watch for the implications of this ruling, which may limit the ability to compel police registration of FIRs under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

Source: Original reporting via The New Indian Express