A mere instance of malfeasance does not suffice to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act; prima facie complaint allegations must be established.

ORDER

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2025

This petition has been filed by the 2^nd accused in C.M.P.No.243/2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha, and the prayer herein is as under:

“To allow the above Criminal M.C. and quash Annexure-A7 complaint pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha and Annexure-A8 order dated 01.10.2024, in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, and the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

3. In fact, this matter is connected with W.P. (C).No.39191 of 2025 and the same is disposed of today.

4. In this matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length to substantiate the fact that the complaint produced as Annexure A7 alleging corruption in the appointment of HR Manager-in-Charge of Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Counsel, Kerala (V.F.P.C.K) and the same is the subject matter of the another writ petition pending before this Court.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a mere instance of malfeasance or wrong administration or improper discharge of functions or dereliction of duty, by itself, would not be sufficient to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act , 2018 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 2018’ hereinafter) and the present case rests on such facts. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of this Court in Manimekhala S. v. State of Kerala reported in[2024 (2) KHC 37]. Therefore, the prayer in the petition to quash Annexure A7 complaint and Annexure A8 order is liable to succeed.

6. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, who is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C).No.39191 of 2025 that, going by the averments in Annexure A7 complaint, the learned Special Judge found that the complaint would require consideration only after obtaining sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act, 2018, and therefore, a premature quashment of the complaint and the order is unwarranted. That apart, the averments in the complaint emphatically discloses commission of PC Act offences by the petitioner.

7. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa , reported in(2013) 10 SCC 705, the procedure adopted by the learned Special Judge in directing the complainant to obtain sanction is legally sustainable, and the 5^th respondent would get an opportunity before the sanctioning authority to submit his version.

8. On the facts, it could be seen that the appointment of the HR Manager-in-Charge of V.F.P.C.K., without considering other qualified persons, could have facilitated an undue pecuniary advantage to the 5^th respondent and other officers named in the complaint, as alleged in Annexure A7 complaint. It is well settled that even though quashment of complaint by invoking power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is legally permissible, the said course of action would be opted only when the court satisfies that there are no materials prima facie disclosing commission of any offence by the accused. To the contrary, when the averments in the complaint disclose a prima facie offence alleged to be committed by the accused, the quashment power will not be invoked. Here, Annexure A7 complaint discloses prima facie allegations against the petitioner, and therefore, the same could not be quashed. As a sequel thereof, Annexure A8 order directing production of sanction by the accused also could not be quashed. Consequently, this Crl.M.C. is liable to fail and the same is dismissed.