G. Mohandas vs The State Of Kerala

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024)

G. MOHANDAS ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

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, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2025.07.15 18:30:07 IST Reason:

1

Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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

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”.

2 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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 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

6 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Rules’.

3 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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,

4 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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 Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,8 and

7 For short, “Vigilance Department”. 8 Hereinafter, referred to as “PC Act.’’

5 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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.

9 Hereinafter, referred to as “IPC.’’

6 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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

10 Final Report No.02 of 2020. 7 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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 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

8 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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

9 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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.

10 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024

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 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

11 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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,

12 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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.

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

13 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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

14 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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

15 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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 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

16 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024 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.

17 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024

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.

….……………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) NEW DELHI;

JULY 15, 2025.

18 Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024