Court rejects Ansiba’s plea for FIR, finds no cognisable offence
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, has dismissed actor Ansiba Hassan’s plea seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) based on her complaint
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, has dismissed actor Ansiba Hassan’s plea seeking registration of a first information report (FIR) based on her complaint against fellow actor Lakshmipriya and two representatives of an online media outlet. Hassan had accused them of circulating videos on social media platforms with the intent of tarnishing her image and subjecting her to public humiliation. Instead, she has been directed to appear before the court for recording a sworn statement. After examining the complaint, supporting affidavit, and the submission made by the Palarivattom Station House Officer (SHO), Judge Shana Beegam observed that no cognisable offence was presently made out to warrant forwarding the complaint to the SHO.
Hassan had approached the court alleging police inaction on her complaint, following which the court directed the police to submit an explanation on July 9, 2026. Her counsel argued that the acts of the accused attracted cognisable offences and, therefore, warranted registration of an FIR. Hassan is now set to challenge the verdict before the Kerala High Court. In his submission, the Palarivattom SHO said that a preliminary inquiry was conducted after securing permission from the Ernakulam Assistant Commissioner as he was uncertain whether a cognisable offence had been committed warranting such an inquiry under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Subsequently, six persons were questioned, their statements recorded, and the video from the YouTube channel ‘Can Media’ collected. He added that Ms. Hassan’s statement was not recorded as he was not prepared to do so. The findings of the preliminary inquiry were sent to her via email on July 8, 2026. The SHO further submitted that based on the preliminary assessment, there was no scope for invoking cognisable offences, and that the matter attracted only BNS Section
356 (criminal defamation). Hence, no complaint was registered. Hassan, however, argued that the alleged acts of the accused attracted BNS Section 75 (sexual harassment), Section 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form), and Section 119 of the Kerala Police Act (atrocities and offences committed against the dignity and privacy of women in public or private spaces).
The BriefWire