The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, upholding the Kerala High Court’s decision to proceed with criminal charges under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy). The Court ruled that obtaining a fraudulent permit for illegal construction in a prohibited zone constituted a criminal conspiracy with municipal officials. The attempt to regularise the unauthorised building did not absolve the appellant of liability. The Court distinguished the architect’s case, noting lack of active involvement in the conspiracy. Charges were affirmed, emphasising strict enforcement of anti-corruption laws.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves G. Mohandas, the owner of a building in Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram, who was accused of colluding with municipal officials to construct a four-storeyed commercial building in a zone where such construction was prohibited. The prosecution alleged that Mohandas submitted an application for renovation and internal alterations under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, even though no such permission was legally required. The Municipal Corporation granted the permit, which Mohandas allegedly misused to demolish the existing structure and construct a new commercial building.A complaint was filed by Dr. Biju Ramesh, leading to a Vigilance Department investigation, which found that Mohandas and the officials had conspired to bypass zoning laws. Despite a stop memo issued in 2006, Mohandas continued construction. The FIR was registered under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for abuse of official position) and Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy). Mohandas sought quashing of proceedings, arguing that the building collapsed due to heavy rainfall and that he had applied for regularisation. However, the High Court dismissed his plea, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision, ruling that the fraudulent permit and illegal construction established a prima facie case of conspiracy and corruption. The Court also rejected his claim of parity with the architect, who was discharged due to lack of involvement in the conspiracy.
Procedural History:
The case originated with an FIR (No. 03/2009/SIU-1) registered on 19th March 2009 by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau against G. Mohandas, officials of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation, and an architect, alleging criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC) and corruption (Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988). Following investigation, a chargesheet (Final Report No. 02 of 2020) was filed before the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, which rejected Mohandas’ discharge plea under Section 239 CrPC and ordered framing of charges.Mohandas then approached the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC (Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 330 of 2021) seeking quashing of proceedings, arguing that the regularisation application negated criminal intent. The High Court dismissed his plea on 16th January 2024, holding that the fraudulent procurement of permission and illegal construction disclosed a prima facie case.Aggrieved, Mohandas filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP (Crl.) No. 1694 of 2024) before the Supreme Court, which was converted into a Criminal Appeal. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 15th July 2025, upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that the charges were rightly framed and rejecting parity with the architect (whose prosecution was quashed earlier). The appeal was dismissed, allowing the trial to proceed.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Awards Compensation & Reforms for Disabled Advocate From Torture to Justice
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations while dismissing the appeal. It noted that the appellant (G. Mohandas) had fraudulently obtained a permit for “renovation” under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, despite no such permission being legally required for internal alterations. The Court observed that this was a deliberate act of misrepresentation, intended to conceal the illegal construction of a commercial building in a prohibited zone.The Court further held that the subsequent application for regularisation did not absolve the appellant of criminal liability, as the initial conspiracy with municipal officials and the violation of zoning laws constituted clear offenses under Section 120-B IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. It emphasized that compounding or regularisation of illegal constructions does not erase criminal culpability arising from fraudulent intent and abuse of legal processes.Additionally, the Court distinguished the appellant’s case from that of the architect (accused No. 7), noting that the architect had no active role in the conspiracy and was merely performing professional duties. The Court refused to grant parity, stating that the appellant’s direct involvement in securing illegal permissions and defying the stop memo demonstrated criminal intent.Finally, the Court affirmed the High Court’s view that the chargesheet disclosed a prima facie case, warranting a full trial. It reiterated the need for strict enforcement of anti-corruption laws and zoning regulations, dismissing the appeal as devoid of merit.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by G. Mohandas, upholding the Kerala High Court’s decision that allowed the criminal prosecution to proceed against him. The Court ruled that the charges under Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (abuse of official position) were legally sustainable based on the evidence presented. It held that Mohandas had fraudulently obtained construction permissions under false pretenses and willfully violated zoning laws, establishing a prima facie case of criminal misconduct.The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the building’s collapse due to heavy rainfall or the subsequent regularization application nullified criminal liability. It clarified that attempts to regularize illegal constructions do not absolve prior criminal acts, especially when committed through collusion with public officials. The judgment also denied parity with the discharged architect, emphasizing the appellant’s active role in the conspiracy.Concluding that the High Court had correctly refused to quash the proceedings, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, reaffirming the judiciary’s zero-tolerance approach towards corruption and illegal constructions.
Case Details:
Case Title:G. Mohandas vs. State of Kerala & Ors. Citation:2025 INSC 854 Criminal Appeal No.:SLP (Crl.) No. 1694 of 2024 Date of Judgment:July 15, 2025 Bench: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here