"Even though the name of the victim was not specifically disclosed, the details of the victim's parents, the place where the victim and her parents lived, and the school where the victim studied, were disclosed," the court said. The same was disclosed in detail. The disclosure prima facie reveals an offense punishable under Section 228A of the IPC."
The court ordered K.K. Acted on a petition filed by. Joshua had earlier lodged a complaint with a local police station and the district police chief in the state capital.
The petitioner then approached the High Court which asked the concerned authorities to consider the complaint.When he did not get a favorable response, he was forced to approach the court and direct the police to file an FIR.
The court, after hearing all the parties, said, “Referring to the victim as 'Pidippikapetta Penkutty' (molested girl) along with detailed personal information clearly identifies her as the rape victim mentioned in the book.' '
It further says, “Therefore, resolving a complaint by a person, filing or communicating material which suggests a cognizable offence, if action is not taken by the police officer and the Superintendent of Police, then ordinarily the Magistrate An investigation is demanded." A Magistrate can be approached for investigation as permitted under Section 202 CrPC by filing a private complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC or otherwise, however, it is well settled that the power of the Constitutional Court to order an investigation is subject to the availability of The alternative remedy in an appropriate case of this nature, where the accused is none other than the former DGP of the State of Kerala, has not been taken away,'' the court said.
It directed the police to register an FIR and conduct a thorough investigation in compliance with the Lalita Kumari judgment.Mathews, who took voluntary retirement from the service, was later appointed Chief Information Officer.
The court ordered K.K. Acted on a petition filed by. Joshua had earlier lodged a complaint with a local police station and the district police chief in the state capital.
The petitioner then approached the High Court which asked the concerned authorities to consider the complaint.When he did not get a favorable response, he was forced to approach the court and direct the police to file an FIR.
The court, after hearing all the parties, said, “Referring to the victim as 'Pidippikapetta Penkutty' (molested girl) along with detailed personal information clearly identifies her as the rape victim mentioned in the book.' '
It further says, “Therefore, resolving a complaint by a person, filing or communicating material which suggests a cognizable offence, if action is not taken by the police officer and the Superintendent of Police, then ordinarily the Magistrate An investigation is demanded." A Magistrate can be approached for investigation as permitted under Section 202 CrPC by filing a private complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC or otherwise, however, it is well settled that the power of the Constitutional Court to order an investigation is subject to the availability of The alternative remedy in an appropriate case of this nature, where the accused is none other than the former DGP of the State of Kerala, has not been taken away,'' the court said.
It directed the police to register an FIR and conduct a thorough investigation in compliance with the Lalita Kumari judgment.Mathews, who took voluntary retirement from the service, was later appointed Chief Information Officer.
