G. MOHANDAS versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 541 · Decided: 15-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.