Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 854
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)
J U D G M E N T
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
th
judgment and order dated 16 January, 2024,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.07.15
18:30:07 IST
Reason:
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
1
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024
1
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Miscellaneous
Case No. 330 of 2021, whereby the petition filed by
the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code
2
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , seeking quashing of
3
the FIR , 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
4
building 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
5
Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation 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
6
Building Rules, 1999, 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
7
and Anti-Corruption Bureau , conducted a surprise
th
inspection of the disputed building on 5 January,
2007. On receiving the report of the surprise
inspection, the Government vide letter No.
st
6918/D1/2007/Vig. dated 31 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
8
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and
7
For short, “Vigilance Department”.
8
Hereinafter, referred to as “PC Act.’’
5
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024
9
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , 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
th
2009 was registered on 19 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
10
of the investigation, a chargesheet 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
th
7 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
th
dated 16 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
th
27 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
th
27 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
th
dated 16 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
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)
J U D G M E N T
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
th
judgment and order dated 16 January, 2024,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.07.15
18:30:07 IST
Reason:
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
1
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024
1
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Miscellaneous
Case No. 330 of 2021, whereby the petition filed by
the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code
2
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , seeking quashing of
3
the FIR , 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
4
building 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
5
Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation 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
6
Building Rules, 1999, 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
7
and Anti-Corruption Bureau , conducted a surprise
th
inspection of the disputed building on 5 January,
2007. On receiving the report of the surprise
inspection, the Government vide letter No.
st
6918/D1/2007/Vig. dated 31 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
8
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and
7
For short, “Vigilance Department”.
8
Hereinafter, referred to as “PC Act.’’
5
Crl. Appeal @SLP (Crl.) No (s). 1694 of 2024
9
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , 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
th
2009 was registered on 19 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
10
of the investigation, a chargesheet 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
th
7 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
th
dated 16 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
th
27 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
th
27 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
th
dated 16 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