The probe was based on a complaint filed by a woman alleging sexual assault against the former SP, and others.

The probe was based on a complaint filed by a woman alleging sexual assault against the former SP, and others.

The probe was based on a complaint filed by a woman alleging sexual assault against the former SP, and others.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has quashed a single bench order directing Ponnani magistrate court to order a probe against three police officers, including Sujith Das, the former Superintendent of Police (SP) of Malappuram. The court was considering an appeal by Vinod Valiyattoor.

The probe was based on a complaint filed by a woman alleging sexual assault against the former SP, and others. The woman had complained to the Ponnani Police against former Ponnani Circle Inspector (CI) Vinod Valiyattoor, now serving in Kottakkal, and former Tirur Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) VV Benny, currently stationed in Tanur. She alleged that DySP Benny attempted to molest her in 2022, making derogatory remarks and that she resisted. Additionally, she accused IPS officer Das of sexual assault. In a detailed report submitted to the Kerala High Court, Malappuram Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) Feroz M Shafeeque had refuted the sexual abuse allegations.

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite her complaints to the police and the magistrate court, no FIR was filed in the case. The single bench, in its review, instructed the magistrate to proceed with an investigation order without requesting a report from a higher-ranking official. It clarified that allegations of sexual assault, including coitus by a police officer or public servant, are not considered to arise from official duty, thereby not necessitating a senior officer's report.

In his appeal, Vinod contended that the complaint was baseless and claimed he was neither personally included as a party to the petition nor given a chance to be heard. He argued that the single bench directive to initiate an investigation rather than seeking a report from a senior officer was incorrect, asserting that such a report is obligatory under Section 175 of the BNNS.