Kochi: In a surprising development, the woman actor who filed a sexual assault case against seven people, including actors Mukesh and Jayasurya, has withdrawn her complaint. The accused also include Maniyanpilla Raju, Edavela Babu, production executives Noble and Vichu, and producer-advocate VS Chandrasekharan.

The complainant stated that she was withdrawing the case due to a lack of investigation in the POCSO case registered against her and the cyber bullying she faced. “I have already submitted a complaint letter to the Prime Minister and Chief Minister. A lot of people are calling me a ‘prostitute’ on social media because of this POCSO case. The police have not even taken my statement yet. If it took place in Chennai, why wasn’t the case transferred? I can’t bear this anymore. I am withdrawing all the cases,” she said. However, the actor did not cite any issues with the investigation of the sexual assault case based on her complaint.

The POCSO case
Police had filed charges, including offences under the POCSO Act, based on a complaint from the actor's female relative in Muvattupuzha. According to the FIR, the accused allegedly made the complainant a sex slave and presented her to a group in Chennai before she reached puberty. The complainant also claimed that the artist was part of a sex mafia. 

The original complaint
In her complaint, the woman alleged that four actors — Mukesh, Maniyanpilla Raju, Idavela Babu and Jayasurya — physically and verbally abused her on the sets of a 2013 movie. She also accused Jayasurya of misbehaving with her while she was returning from a restroom in 2008.

The actor further claimed that Edavela Babu misbehaved with her in 2013 when she applied for the Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes (AMMA) membership. She alleged that Mukesh, a two-time MLA from the ruling CPM, denied her membership after she rejected his advances.

In September, the Ernakulam Sessions Court highlighted inconsistencies in the complainant's claims regarding the dates and locations of the alleged assaults while granting anticipatory bail to Chandrasekharan. The court also noted conflicting accounts provided by the complainant to a doctor, which contradicted parts of her formal complaint.