What are the legal obligations of a Magistrate when faced with allegations of sexual assault against public servants?

Court Order

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court addressed the legal obligations of Magistrates in the context of sexual assault allegations against public servants, particularly focusing on the procedural aspects laid out in the BNSS (Bharat Natyam Society Act) and relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Case Background

The case arose from allegations made by a woman against four higher police officials in Ponnani, Malappuram district, for rape and sexual assault in 2022. The petitioner had sought to register an FIR under Section 173(1) of the BNSS but faced delays as the Magistrate called for a report from a superior officer instead of directing an immediate investigation.

Legal Proceedings

Initial Complaint: The petitioner initially reported the incident to the Station House Officer, but an FIR was not registered. She subsequently sent a complaint via email to the Police Superintendent, who initiated an inquiry without filing an FIR.
Magistrate's Actions: The petitioner later filed a private complaint with the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, which also did not order an investigation immediately.

Key Observations from the Court

Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court noted the importance of timely investigations, especially in cases of serious allegations against public officials. The court emphasized that the failure to take action on the initial complaint was shocking, considering the serious nature of the allegations.

Magistrate's Obligations and Discretion

The court highlighted that the discretion given to Magistrates under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which allows for ordering police investigations, should be viewed as an obligation to act decisively, especially when serious allegations like rape and sexual assault are involved. The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of UP, which indicated that a Magistrate should take complaints seriously and direct investigations promptly.

Additionally, the court scrutinized the application of Section 175(4) of the BNSS, which stipulates that a Magistrate may call for a report from a superior officer when a complaint arises against a public servant in the discharge of their duties. The court clarified that the term 'may' indicates a discretionary power, not a mandatory one, and emphasized that allegations of rape do not fall within the scope of duties performed by a public servant.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court's ruling reinforces the principle that when faced with allegations of sexual assault against public servants, a Magistrate has a duty to order an investigation without undue delay. The court mandated that the Magistrate pass orders for an investigation within ten days, underlining the urgency and gravity of such allegations.