G. MOHANDASversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 541 : 2025 INSC 854

                              G. Mohandas
                                    v.
                          State of Kerala & Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2992 of 2025)
                                  15 July 2025
               [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High
       Court refusing to quash FIR against the appellants-officials of the
       Municipal Corporation and the builder u/s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of
       the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and s.120-B IPC, wherein
       the builder in conspiracy with the officials constructed a commercial
       structure in a prohibited zone under the garb of the renovation
       permission.

                                   Headnotes†
       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) –
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B – Criminal misconduct – Criminal
       conspiracy – Appellant-builder and the officials of the
       Municipal Corporation conspired to facilitate the appellant in
       constructing the building in violation of the Rules – Officials
       granted the permit to the appellant for internal alterations/
       renovation in the building even though not required – On the
       strength of the said permit, allegedly issued as a part of the
       conspiracy, the appellant demolished the existing building
       and constructed a four-storeyed commercial building in
       gross violation of the Rules – FIR against the officials of
       the Municipal Corporation, the appellant and the architect
       u/s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the PC Act and s.120-B IPC – Filing
       of charge-sheet and framing of charges – Petition u/s.482
       CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings – Dismissed by
       the High Court – Interference:
       Held: Not called for – From the very beginning, the appellant acted
       in conspiracy with the Municipal Corporation officials by giving
       a facade of legitimacy to his fraudulent actions and to establish


* Author
542                                                              [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       a pre-emptive defence in case the illegal acts were exposed –
       Officials of the Municipal Corporation deliberately turned a blind
       eye to the fact that the appellant had commenced construction
       of a commercial structure by misusing the permit granted for
       making renovations and/or internal changes – Moreover, they even
       entertained the fraudulent application filed by the appellant seeking
       the regularisation of the patently illegal structure, which could not
       have been entertained since the construction of a commercial
       structure was not permissible as it fell within a prohibited zone –
       Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged clearly
       established from the allegations set out – Furthermore, these
       officials did not challenge the criminal proceedings, which is a tacit
       acknowledgment of the seriousness and prima facie validity of the
       allegations – Case of the architect, whose prosecution was quashed
       by the High Court, stands on an entirely different footing – He was
       merely discharging his professional obligations and had no prior
       knowledge of the criminal intent shared by the parties – Concerned
       authorities under obligation to take suitable action against the
       illegal construction raised by the appellant, uninfluenced by any
       extraneous circumstances – Kerala Municipality Building Rules,
       1999. [Paras 13-18]

                                   List of Acts
       Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Kerala
       Municipality Building Rules, 1999; Prevention of Corruption Act,
       1988; Penal Code, 1860.

                                List of Keywords
       Quashing of FIR; Permit for internal alterations/renovation;
       Conspiracy; Demolition of the building; Construction of commercial
       building in prohibited zone; Officials of the Municipal Corporation;
       Fraudulent actions; Establish pre-emptive defence; Regularisation
       of illegal structure.

                               Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       2992 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2024 of the High Court
       of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRMC No. 330 of 2021
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            543

                          G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala & Ors.


                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Ms. Mahesh Sharma.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv., Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot,
       Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Ms. Anna Oommen, Anshul Saharan.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                               Judgment

       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 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, seeking quashing of the FIR3, 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 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 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.


1    Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2    Hereinafter, referred to as the “CrPC”.
3    FIR No. 03/2009/SIU-1.
4    Hereinafter, referred to as “disputed building”.
5    Hereinafter, referred to as the “Municipal Corporation”.
544                                                            [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


       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 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, 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


6   Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Rules’.
7   For short, “Vigilance Department”.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         545

                          G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala & Ors.


               Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,8 and
               Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18609, 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 the Director of Vigilance Department,
           an FIR, bearing VC No. 3 of 2009 was registered on 19th March,
           2009, against the officials of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal
           Corporation, the appellant and the architect of the disputed
           building, under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act
           and Section 120-B of the IPC. The appellant was arrayed as
           accused No. 6, whereas accused Nos. 1 to 5 were officials of
           the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation. The architect
           of the disputed building was arrayed as accused No. 7.
       4.6 The Investigating Officer concluded in the report under
           Section 173(2) CrPC that the indicted officials of the Municipal
           Corporation, as well as the appellant, were aware of the fact that
           no permit was required for the internal alterations/renovation in
           the existing building. They were also aware that the location of
           the disputed building fell within a zone where the construction
           of commercial buildings was strictly prohibited. In spite thereof,
           the appellant submitted the questioned application for permit
           posing it to be necessary under the Rules, and the officials of
           the Municipal Corporation granted the permit even though not
           required. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet10
           came to be filed against the appellant, the officials of the
           Municipal Corporation, and the architect (accused No. 7), in
           the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,
           Thiruvananthapuram.
       4.7 Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by way
           of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 330 of 2021 under
           Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking quashing of the proceedings.
           It was the case of the appellant before the High Court that as
           a matter of fact, the permission was sought for and taken for
           renovation, alterations, and internal changes to the existing


8    Hereinafter, referred to as “PC Act.’’
9    Hereinafter, referred to as “IPC.’’
10   Final Report No.02 of 2020.
546                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            building in a bona fide manner. However, before the renovation
            work could be undertaken, there was a heavy deluge of torrential
            rainfall which caused the building to collapse, and, therefore,
            the appellant was compelled to construct the new building. He
            urged that the appellant moved for regularisation of the disputed
            building and accepting the said prayer, the Municipal Corporation
            has raised a demand of Rs. 18,58,653/- for regularisation of
            the unauthorised construction, and once the regularisation
            is permitted on payment of the compounding charges, the
            criminality of the alleged act is erased.
       4.8 The appellant further contended that the architect for the
           building in question, namely A. Dharamakeerthi, who was
           arrayed as accused No. 7, also approached the High Court
           by filing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, bearing
           Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2161 of 2020, and vide order dated
           7th January 2021, the learned Single Judge of the High Court
           has quashed the proceedings against accused No. 7, namely
           A. Dharamakeerthi. Thus, the appellant is also entitled to the
           same treatment on parity.
       4.9 However, the High Court did not find favour with the submissions
           of the appellant and dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition filed
           by him vide order dated 16th January, 2024, which is assailed
           in this appeal by special leave.

       Submissions on behalf of the appellant:-
5.     Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
       vehemently and fervently submitted that the prosecution case, as set
       out in the chargesheet, does not disclose the necessary ingredients
       of the offences alleged against the appellant. He fervently contended
       that since the Municipal Corporation has already decided to compound
       the disputed construction, no element of criminality remains in the
       alleged infraction/deviation. He further submitted that the original
       building collapsed due to heavy rainfall, and that the appellant merely
       rebuilt the old structure. As per Mr. Basant, there was no violation
       of the Rules in raising the new construction, more so, when the
       application for regularisation has been accepted.
6.     Shri Basant, therefore, urged that the appeal is fit to be accepted
       and the impugned order passed by the High Court, along with all
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         547

                    G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala & Ors.


     the proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant, deserve
     to be quashed.

     Submissions on behalf of the respondents:-
7.   Per contra, Shri P.V. Dinesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
     respondent-State, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions
     advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the entire thrust
     of the appellant’s case, that the building collapsed due to torrential
     rainfall after due permission for renovation, alterations, and internal
     changes was granted by the Municipal Corporation, is nothing but
     a figment of imagination.
8.   No sooner after the complaint had been received regarding the
     illegal construction, the Vigilance Department issued a stop memo
     to the appellant on 27th November, 2006. In sheer defiance of the
     stop memo, the appellant continued the construction and raised a
     four-storey commercial building in a zone where the construction of
     commercial buildings was prohibited. Not only this, in order to cover
     up his fraudulent acts, the appellant even tried to get the unauthorised
     construction regularised by filing an ex post facto application even
     though no such regularisation was permissible as the zone where
     the disputed building was constructed was a non-commercial zone.
9.   Learned senior counsel submitted that it is a different matter that the
     regularisation never took place, as the criminal acts of the appellant
     and the officials had already been exposed during the vigilance
     enquiry. He further contended that, following the dismissal of the
     petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 CrPC by the High
     Court, the Special Judge has already directed the framing of charges
     against the appellant and hence, the appellant has no valid existing
     grounds to assail the impugned order and the chargesheet.
10. He, therefore, urged that the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves
    to be dismissed, and that the order under challenge, as well as all
    the proceedings initiated against the appellant, ought to be allowed
    to continue in accordance with law.

     Discussion and Conclusion: -
11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced
    at bar and have gone through the impugned order and the material
    placed on record.
548                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


12. It was not disputed and is also evident from the Kerala Municipality
    Building Rules, 1999, that there is no requirement whatsoever for
    seeking permission to make alterations, renovations, or internal
    changes in an existing building. Despite that, the appellant acted in
    conspiracy with officials of the Municipal Corporation and procured
    such permission, which was nothing but a precursor to the fraudulent
    design of raising construction of a commercial structure in a prohibited
    zone under the garb of the renovation permission.
13. Clearly thus, from the very beginning, the appellant acted in conspiracy
    with the Municipal Corporation officials by giving a facade of legitimacy
    to his fraudulent actions and to establish a pre-emptive defence in
    case the illegal acts were exposed.
14. After the complaint was registered against the appellant and other
    officials, the Vigilance Department was informed, and a stop memo
    dated 27th November, 2006 was issued to the appellant, prohibiting
    any further construction activity. In sheer defiance of the stop memo,
    a four-storeyed commercial building was constructed. Furthermore,
    the appellant attempted to legitimise his fraudulent criminal actions
    by seeking an order for the regularisation of the patently illegal
    construction.
15. From the above-stated sequence of events, it is evident that the
    appellant and the officials of the Municipal Corporation were acting
    hands in glove right from the time of granting permission to renovate
    the pre-existing building. The officials of the Municipal Corporation
    deliberately turned a blind eye to the fact that the appellant had
    commenced construction of a commercial structure by misusing
    the permit granted for making renovations and/or internal changes.
    Moreover, they even entertained the fraudulent application filed by the
    appellant seeking the regularisation of the patently illegal structure.
    Indisputably, the construction of a commercial structure was not
    permissible as it fell within a prohibited zone. Hence, the application
    for regularisation could not have been entertained. Inspite thereof,
    the conniving officials raised a demand for regularisation presumably
    to give legitimacy to the conspiratorial design. Thus, the necessary
    ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly established from the
    allegations set out in the prosecution’s case.
16. The trial Court has already rejected the application filed by the
    appellant under Section 239 of the CrPC and has directed framing
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        549

                     G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala & Ors.


     of charges against him and the officials of the Corporation who were
     charge-sheeted along with the appellant with the aid of Section
     120B of the IPC. These officials have not challenged the criminal
     proceedings, which is a tacit acknowledgment of the seriousness and
     prima facie validity of the allegations. Needless to say, that the case
     of the architect, whose prosecution was quashed by the High Court,
     stands on an entirely different footing. He was merely discharging
     his professional obligations while preparing the architectural design
     for the building, without any active involvement in the alleged
     conspiracy or the execution of the illegal construction. There is no
     material on record to suggest his prior knowledge or participation
     in the criminal intent shared by the appellant and the Corporation
     officials. Hence, the appellant cannot claim parity with the architect,
     i.e., accused No. 7 in the chargesheet, and any reliance placed on
     the High Court’s order quashing proceedings against the architect
     is wholly misplaced.
17. We direct that the concerned authorities shall be under an obligation
    to take suitable action against the illegal construction raised by the
    appellant, uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances.
18. It is our firm opinion that the impugned order dated 16th January, 2024,
    passed by the 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. Hence, the present appeal
    fails and is being dismissed as being devoid of merit.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain