The State Police Complaints Authority, Kerala, ordered action against 3 police officers for falsely implicating an 82-year-old man, M.N. Janardhanan Nambiar, in a rape case in 2011. The Authority directed the registration of a criminal case u/s 219 and 220 IPC against K.G. Suresh (then Circle Inspector, now Assistant Commissioner of Police), K. Sudharsan (then Circle Inspector), and Sivadasan (then ACP).

The dispute originated from cheque dishonour cases filed against Reetha, in which the petitioner was a witness. According to petitioner, Reetha threatened him by sending two persons impersonating members of the Human Rights Commission and later used police officers to threaten him with a false case. Reetha had also lodged complaints before police and Human Rights Commission against him, but did not allege any sexual assault.

Subsequently, two sub-inspectors summoned and threatened petitioner with a false rape case if the cheque cases were not withdrawn. When the petitioner sought information under the RTI Act, the police confirmed that no rape complaint had been filed by Reetha. Even when her statement was recorded by DSP in 2009, there was no allegation of rape. The Human Rights Commission directed action against police officers for issuing such threats.

In 2011, after the petitioner again complained to DGP regarding police harassment, the matter was forwarded to then IGP, who directed Women Circle Inspector to record Reetha’s statement. Shortly thereafter, on 21 June 2011, Reetha lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had raped her during 2005–2006.

The investigation was initially conducted by K.G. Suresh, who filed a chargesheet for the offence of rape. Upon the petitioner’s complaints, two rounds of further investigation were ordered, first by K. Sudharsan and later by Sivadasan, both of whom also filed chargesheets for the offence of rape. Consequently, the case was tried before Assistant Sessions Court, Thrissur.

By judgment dated 30 November 2023, Sessions Court acquitted Nambiar. Court held that the evidence and the complainant’s version did not disclose the essential ingredients of rape, noted the unexplained delay and the background of financial disputes. It concluded that the accused had been falsely implicated due to enmity arising from cheque dishonour cases.

Relying on this judgment and earlier proceedings, Authority observed that prior to 2011, Reetha had never alleged rape, and that police threat of false implication preceded the registration of FIR. The Authority found that investigating officers failed to conduct a fair and legally sound investigation into whether the basic ingredients of the offence were made out, and repeatedly filed chargesheets for rape.

The Authority held that Suresh, Sudharsan, and Sivadasan had “maliciously or corruptly” prepared chargesheets contrary to law and had wrongfully committed the petitioner for trial, thereby attracting offences under Sections 219 and 220 IPC. It recorded that the consequences were “devastating,” as an elderly man was subjected to prolonged criminal prosecution, litigation, loss of reputation, and severe disruption of his family life.

Accordingly, petition was allowed against the three investigating officers, and the IGP was directed to register a criminal case against them and submit a compliance report within one month.