The contempt proceedings originated from a representation submitted by film producer Sheela Kurian in December 2025, in which she alleged that Deputy Superintendent of Police Madhu Babu had behaved improperly towards her during an official interaction. She sought initiation of criminal or departmental action against the officer. A co‑ordinate Bench of the Kerala High Court, taking note of her representation, directed the Inspector General of Police for the Ernakulam range to consider her complaint and to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law.
The direction was issued with the expectation that the police hierarchy would examine the allegations and, if warranted, register a first information report or initiate disciplinary proceedings. The Bench made it clear that the order was not a final adjudication on the merits of the allegations but a procedural step to ensure that the petitioner’s grievance was placed before the competent authority for consideration.
State’s Compliance and the Police Inquiry Report
In the subsequent month, the High Court directed the State of Kerala to file a report confirming compliance with the earlier direction. When the matter came up for hearing on 8 July 2026, Justice Jobin Sebastian orally inquired whether the representation had been considered by the concerned authority.
The State’s response, conveyed through the Deputy Inspector General of Police for the Ernakulam range, indicated that there is no sanctioned post of Inspector General of Police in that particular range. Consequently, the responsibility for examining the representation fell to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam (Rural).
The Additional Superintendent conducted an independent inquiry into all the allegations raised by the petitioner. The inquiry report, submitted to the Court, stated that no material was found that would warrant the registration of a criminal case or the initiation of departmental proceedings against DySP Madhu Babu. The conclusions were based on the statements of witnesses, verification of relevant records, examination of an audio recording of the interaction captured by CCTV footage, and other objective materials gathered during the investigation.
Court’s Observations on Compliance and Remedial Options
After hearing the submission and perusing the inquiry report, Justice Sebastian observed that the direction issued by the co‑ordinate Bench had been substantially complied with. He noted that the authority concerned had considered the representation, had ordered an inquiry, and had examined the allegations through an independent process. The Court emphasized that the inquiry had not uncovered any evidence sufficient to justify criminal prosecution or departmental action against the officer.
Justice Sebastian further remarked that, should the petitioner continue to feel aggrieved, she remained free to pursue remedies available under the ordinary criminal law, such as approaching the jurisdictional magistrate for directions regarding the registration of a first information report. He characterised the approach of moving directly to the High Court for contempt as procedurally improper, observing that the proper forum for a complaint of non‑registration of an FIR is the magistrate’s court.
The Judge added that his predecessor had previously passed an order in favour of the petitioner, but the present course of action was to honour the earlier direction while clarifying the appropriate remedial pathway. Consequently, the Court declared the contempt petition closed, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to explore any other statutory remedies she might deem fit.
Implications of the Order
The decision underscores the High Court’s insistence that contempt proceedings are not to be used as a substitute for regular criminal remedies when the police have conducted a lawful inquiry and found no basis for action. It reinforces the principle that allegations of police misconduct must first be examined by the appropriate executive authority, and only if that authority fails to act or acts illegally may the aggrieved party seek judicial intervention.
For the petitioner, the order leaves open the possibility of filing a complaint before the magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or of pursuing a writ petition alleging mala fide or non‑application of mind by the police, should she be able to demonstrate such grounds. For the police administration, the judgment affirms that a properly conducted inquiry, documented and based on objective evidence, satisfies the judicial direction to consider a representation and shields officers from unwarranted contempt proceedings.
The case, identified as Contempt Case (C) No. 1363 of 2026, titled Thilakeshwari @ Sheela Kurian v. G. Sparjan Kumar IPS, thus concludes with the High Court closing the contempt notice while affirming the availability of ordinary legal remedies for any persisting grievance.