Ernakulam Court Denies FIR Request in Ansiba Hassan Defamation Dispute

Magistrate Rejects Immediate Police Action

Judge Shana Beegam of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Ernakulam has dismissed a petition filed by actor Ansiba Hassan. The plea sought an order directing the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against actor Lakshmipriya and two representatives of the 'Can Media' online platform. Hassan alleges the parties coordinated to circulate social media videos designed to damage her reputation and incite public humiliation.

The court ruled that current evidence fails to establish a cognisable offense that would require an automatic police investigation. Instead of an FIR, the magistrate directed Hassan to provide a sworn statement directly to the court to determine how the case should proceed. Following this setback, the actor has indicated her intent to contest the verdict before the Kerala High Court.

Police Inquiry Cites Defamation Over Sexually Explicit Crimes

The Palarivattom Station House Officer (SHO) detailed the procedural history of the case in a submission on July 9, 2026. After obtaining permission from the Ernakulam Assistant Commissioner, the SHO conducted a preliminary inquiry under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The police investigation included:

• Questioning six individuals and recording their formal statements.
• Analyzing digital content retrieved from the 'Can Media' YouTube channel.
• Assessing if the allegations met the threshold for serious criminal charges.

The SHO concluded that the grievances primarily constitute criminal defamation under BNS Section 356 rather than more severe offenses. Police noted they did not record Hassan's statement at that stage and emailed her the inquiry findings on July 8, 2026.

Legal Disagreements on Statutory Violations

Ansiba Hassan’s legal team argued that the inaction by local police was unjustified. They contended that the digital content violated several specific statutes, including:

• BNS Section 75 and 79: Dealing with sexual harassment and acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman.
• IT Act Section 67: Regarding the transmission of obscene material in electronic formats.
• Kerala Police Act Section 119: Concerning atrocities against the dignity and privacy of women.

Despite these arguments, the court maintained its stance that the current affidavit and SHO report do not satisfy the requirements for a mandatory FIR registration at this time.

Source: The Hindu — Cities