Supreme Court summons Kerala ACP over failure to register FIR
The Supreme Court has expressed strong dissatisfaction over the Kerala Police’s failure to register a formal FIR despite receiving a complaint by post, and directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam district, to personally appear before it with an explanation.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed strong dissatisfaction over the Kerala Police’s failure to register a formal FIR despite receiving a complaint by post, and directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam district, to personally appear before it with an explanation.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan said the affidavit filed by the state of Kerala pursuant to an earlier order was “thoroughly unsatisfactory” as it failed to answer the core issue raised by the top court.
“We find the same to be thoroughly unsatisfactory as the basic point, as to why, immediately upon receipt of the complaint filed by the petitioner, a formal FIR was not registered, has not been answered,” the Justice Amanullah-led Bench observed in its order passed on May 8.
The apex court recorded that it was an admitted position that the complaint sent through post had been received by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam district, on January 8.
“Accordingly, we direct the Assistant Commissioner of Police, District Ernakulam, Kerala, to be personally present before the Court on 15.05.2026… to explain, as to why, upon receipt of the complaint through post, no formal FIR was registered,” the order stated.
It also extended the interim protection earlier granted to the petitioner on February 19 till the next date of hearing.
Follow for more details: munsifdaily.com
The protection restrains coercive action against the petitioner in connection with FIR No.10 of 2026 registered at Panangad Police Station in Ernakulam City, subject to his cooperation in the investigation and trial.
During the previous hearing on April 2, the apex court had questioned the Kerala Police over allegations that a complaint filed by a co-accused person in relation to the same incident — alleging outraging of modesty of a woman belonging to the SC/ST community and supported by a medical report showing injuries — was not acted upon.
“We are at a loss to understand, as to how, when a counter affidavit is being filed, and the said issue has been raised at more than one place in the pleadings, there is no answer given in the counter affidavit on this issue,” the bench had remarked.
Highlighting the wider ramifications of such alleged police inaction, the Supreme Court had observed that the issue had a “larger implication as it relates to the faith of the general public in the police when they approach it with any complaint supported by some evidence”. It had also cautioned that if dereliction of duty on the part of the authorities was established, it would “take a strict view of the same”.
