Procedural Irregularity In Seizure Is Misconduct, Not A Criminal Offence; FIR Quashed Citing Improbable Bribery Allegation: Kerala High Court - 2025-08-05

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Quashes FIR Against Police Officer, Rules Procedural Lapses in Seizure Don't Constitute Criminal Offence

Ernakulam: In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has quashed an FIR lodged by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) against a Principal Sub Inspector of Police, holding that procedural irregularities during the seizure of contraband may amount to misconduct warranting disciplinary action, but do not inherently constitute a criminal offence.

Justice J, while allowing the petition filed by Ratheesh K.G., observed that the bribery allegations against him were improbable and that the prolonged, stalled investigation appeared to be a tool to deny him a deserved promotion.

Background of the Case

The case originates from a search conducted on May 1, 2020, at the residence of a Non-Resident Indian, Saji Philip. The petitioner, Ratheesh K.G., then the Principal Sub Inspector of Alappuzha South Police Station, led a team that seized four litres of foreign liquor.

The prosecution, initiated after a preliminary enquiry, alleged that the police team, acting on a tip-off from a relative of the homeowner, trespassed into the house, seized the liquor without preparing a proper search list, and forged a seizure document. The core of the criminal complaint was the subsequent allegation that the petitioner, through an intermediary, demanded a bribe of ₹6 lakhs from the homeowner's son to avoid registering a case.

Consequently, Crime No.2/2023 was registered by the VACB, Alappuzha, against the petitioner and others for offences under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including conspiracy and forgery.

Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations were false and maliciously intended to ruin his client's career. It was contended that the investigation had been deliberately stalled since 2020, preventing the petitioner's promotion while his juniors advanced. The counsel highlighted the improbability of demanding a ₹6 lakh bribe for an offence where the penalty would be a significantly smaller fine upon pleading guilty. Furthermore, key evidence, such as the phone records allegedly linking the officer to the intermediary, was shown to be weak, as the phone number was not registered in the intermediary's name.

The Public Prosecutor, representing the state, opposed the quashing plea. The prosecution submitted a report from the Investigating Officer, asserting that a probationer Sub Inspector, initially silent due to threats, had later given a statement under Section 164 CrPC confirming the incident. The state maintained that the seizure was illegal and constituted an abuse of official position, justifying the criminal proceedings.

Court's Rationale for Quashing the FIR

The High Court meticulously scrutinized the allegations and found several inconsistencies that weakened the prosecution's case. The court deemed the allegation of demanding a ₹6 lakh bribe to be inherently improbable, especially after the seized liquor had already been produced before a court, indicating that a crime had been registered.

The judgment drew a crucial distinction between a procedural irregularity and a criminal act. Justice J opined:

"In the instant case, when there is allegation that a police officer, who is empowered to search a house on getting an information regarding availability of contraband, if at all searched the same and seized the contraband without preparing seizure mahazar, the same itself is not a criminal offence though same may be a misconduct warranting action under the relevant Service Rules and Conduct Rules respectively."

The court noted that the petitioner had already faced disciplinary proceedings and received a minor penalty for the procedural lapse.

Furthermore, the court expressed concern over the protracted investigation, which had made no headway on critical allegations like forgery even years after the incident. This delay lent credence to the petitioner's apprehension that the case was being used to stall his career. The court observed:

"...when the allegations are taken in toto, it could be gathered that registration of FIR and delay in investigation is without support of sufficient materials and in such situation, registration of this crime and its aftermath are nothing but denying promotion to the petitioner, as apprehended by him, is having force."

While acknowledging the Supreme Court's precedent in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , which cautions against the liberal quashing of FIRs, the court found this to be an exceptional case where the allegations, taken at face value, did not prima facie constitute the offences alleged.

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the entire proceedings were unwarranted, the Kerala High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and quashed the FIR in Crime No.2/2023 of V.A.C.B, Alappuzha. This decision reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be invoked for mere procedural violations by public servants, which are better addressed through internal disciplinary mechanisms. It also serves as a check on investigations that remain dormant for extended periods, potentially causing undue prejudice to the accused.