Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1072
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
G. Mohandas - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2992 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024)
Decided On : 15-07-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. Anshul Saharan, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal charges cannot be quashed on the ground of misplaced plea of parity.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 239 and 482 – Misuse of official position – Framing of charge – Appellant attempted to legitimise his fraudulent criminal actions by seeking order for regularisation of patently illegal construction – Appellant and officials of Municipal Corporation were acting hands in glove right from the time of granting permission to renovate pre-existing building – Officials of Municipal Corporation deliberately turned a blind eye to the fact that appellant had commenced construction of a commercial structure by misusing permit granted for making renovations and/or internal changes – Necessary ingredients of offences alleged are clearly established from allegations set out in prosecution’s case – Case of Architect, whose prosecution was quashed by High Court, stands on an entirely different footing – He was merely discharging his professional obligations while preparing architectural design for building, without any active involvement in alleged conspiracy or execution of illegal construction – There is no material on record to suggest his prior knowledge or participation in criminal intent shared by appellant and Corporation officials – Appellant cannot claim parity with Architect – Concerned authorities shall be under obligation to take suitable action against illegal construction raised by appellant, uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has approached this Court seeking exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution of India for assailing the final judgment and order dated 16th January, 2024, passed by Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 330 of 2021, whereby petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order dated 16th January, 2024, passed by High Court of Kerala in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 330 of 2021, does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever so as to warrant interference by this Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein has approached this Court seeking exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for assailing the final judgment and order dated 16th January, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam1[Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”] in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 330 of 2021, whereby the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732[Hereinafter, referred to as the “CrPC”], seeking quashing of the FIR3[FIR No. 03/2009/SIU-1], was dismissed.
4. Facts, in a nutshell, relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
4.1 The appellant herein is the owner of the building4[Hereinafter, referred to as “disputed building”] bearing No. T.C No. 28/1830 in Survey No. 709 of the Vanchiyoor Village, District Thiruvananthapuram. He is accused of hatching criminal conspiracy along with officials of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation5[Hereinafter, referred to as the “Municipal Corporation”] and the architect (accused No.7) in raising construction of a new four-storeyed commercial building by demolishing the existing building without obtaining the necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation.
4.2 The case of the prosecution is that the appellant, acting in furtherance of a prior conspiracy with the officials of the Municipal Corporation, submitted an application in Appendix-A under Rule 5(1) and Rule 144(1) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999,6[Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Rules’] to the Municipal Corporation, seeking permission to make alterations and internal changes to the pre-existing building. The concerned official of the Municipal Corporation granted a permit to the appellant in Appendix-C under Rule 11(3) of the Rules, limited to renovation of the existing/old building.
4.3 The prosecution alleges that, as a matter of fact, under the provisions of the Rules, no such permit was required for alterations and internal changes to the building. The officials of the Municipal Corporation granted the permit despite the knowledge that the internal renovation of the building could be carried out by the building owner suo moto, and no formal permission was required for the same under the Rules. On the strength of the said permit, which was allegedly issued as a part of the conspiracy, the appellant demolished the existing building located in Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram District, and constructed a four-storeyed commercial building in gross violation of the Rules. The prosecution was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by a businessman, namely, Dr. Biju Ramesh, to the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation, alleging that the appellant, in conspiracy with the Municipal Corporation officials, had constructed the four-storeyed building for commercial usage in violation of the Rules.
4.4 Acting on the above complaint, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau7[For short, “Vigilance Department”], conducted a surprise inspection of the disputed building on 5th January, 2007. On receiving the report of the surprise inspection, the Government vide letter No. 6918/D1/2007/Vig. dated 31st July, 2007, accorded sanction to conduct a vigilance enquiry into the matter. The enquiry concluded that the appellant herein and various officials of the Municipal Corporation had conspired to facilitate the appellant in constructing the building in violation of the Rules and thereby the necessary ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,8[Hereinafter, referred to as “PC Act’’] and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18609[Hereinafter, referred to as “IPC’’], were prima facie made out against the appellant and the erring officials.
4.5 After the enquiry report was submitted and a prosecution sanction was received from
