The Kerala High Court refused lately to quash criminal proceedings against a leading review for revealing the identity of the victim in the sensational Dileep case, which involved the hijacking and sexual assault of a womanish actor. A case was filed against the review for committing an offense under Section 228A of the IPC which prohibits the exposure of the identity of the victims in cases.It had published information which either directly or laterally led to the identification of the victim within its report on the case. This fact gained considerable publicity as well as legal backlash for the newspaper, since Section 228A IPC deems disclosure of any sexual assault victim's identity as a culpable offense, whether it is done with or without intent or negligently. Through the writ petition filed before the Kerala High Court, it urged that the case be quashed, considering that disclosure was neither an intentional leak of information. The identity was revealed only through indirect details and not directly; charges under Section 228A IPC must fall away. These pleas, however, were rejected by the Kerala High Court as it simply said the privacy of the victims of sexual assault is imperative and that is covered by law, hence their dignity and safety as well. The court has reaffirmed that there is no difference between direct and indirect identity revelation; any such revelation leading to identification shall be a violation of Section 228A IPC. The court also observed that the media should be cautious in reporting cases that involve sensitivity, as well as sexual violence cases. Failure in this has an impact on different processes and has serious effects on the mental state, safety, and general wellbeing of the victim. It held that although the disclosure was involuntary, the newspaper had a duty to ensure that its report did not breach the law. Rejecting the prayer to quash the case, Kerala High Court held that the facts would be gone into in greater details by the trial court at the time of trial and newspaper an opportunity to put its defence available at the time of trial. The mere prayer to rely upon inadvertence was not sufficient to dismiss the case at this stage. Thus, the judgment emphasizes the accountability of the media in sexual assault cases and strengthens legal protections of victims under Section 228A IPC. The judgment affirmatively states that no violation of a victim's right of privacy, whether actual or constructive, invites heavy lawful actions against the victims.