Allegations of bribery must have credible evidence; failure of a trap can lead to the dismissal of an FIR as an abuse of legal process.

ORDER

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2026

The petitioners herein, who were the Tahsildar, Kuttanad and the Junior Superintendent, Collectorate Alappuzha have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘ BNSS ’ for short], to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure.A1 FIR No.02/2025/ALP of VACB, Alappuzha dated 07.05.2025. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the additional 3^rd respondent, who is the informant and complainant in this case. Perused the case diary and relevant materials available.

3. The prosecution case as could be discernible from the FIR is that, the 1^st accused who had been working as the Tahsildar, Kuttanad Taluk and the 2^nd accused, who had been working as the Junior Superintendent of District Collectorate, Alappuzha, with intention to obtain illegal gratification, for the purpose of issuing certificate showing less valuation to the property for which the complainant’s wife and his mother-in-law applied for purchase certificate abutting their property, demanded illegal gratification. The specific case is that, at about 4.15 p.m. on 06.05.2025, accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.3 Lakh from the complainant for issuing the certificate. Recording the statement of the complainant, the crime was registered. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act, 2018’ for short] and under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘BNS’ for short]. As submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, on the basis of the statement, pre-trap proceedings completed and when the Vigilance party reached as part of trap, the attempt was failed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the entire allegations in the FIR as to the demand of bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2 are false, in view of the fact that the trap attempt at the instance of the Vigilance was totally failed as FIR was registered without satisfying the truthfulness of the demand. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per Annexure-A1 FIR, the FIR was registered on 10.10 a.m. on 07.05.2025 and the type of information showed in column No.4 is ‘oral’. Despite that, now the prosecution produced Annexure-A38 complaint alleged to be one given by the complainant on 30.04.2025 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is a fabricated document, since, if Annexure-A38 complaint was given in writing, that should have been shown in column No.4 of the FIR. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the wife and mother-in-law of the complainant applied for getting assignment in respect of 4.80 Ares of property of Thalavadi Village in Block No.36 in Resurvey No.558/9, which was abutting their property, given for lease for agricultural purpose. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as on 15.04.2025 for the purpose of considering writ petition for expediting the process of assignment, the 1^st petitioner prepared Annexure-A24 report and accordingly he had fixed Rs.9,43,548/- per Are as the value of the property and according to him, this property was assessed based on the the property of 6.20 Ares in Resurvey No.570/7 in Block No.36 of Thalavadi Village and it was reported that, even though the property was assigned for agricultural purpose, now the same has been using for c