Summary Of The Judgment: G. Mohandas Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: G. Mohandas Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: July 15, 2025
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal No(s). [Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 1694 of 2024]

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

The judgment involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Grants High Courts inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure justice.

• Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), 1988: Pertains to criminal misconduct by public servants.

• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with criminal conspiracy.

• Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999: Governs construction and renovation permissions in Kerala.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties Involved:
  Appellant: G. Mohandas (owner of the disputed building).
  Respondents: State of Kerala & officials of Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation.

• Background:
  The appellant sought permission for "renovation" of an existing building but instead demolished it and constructed a four-storeyed commercial building in a non-commercial zone.
  A vigilance enquiry revealed collusion with municipal officials to bypass rules.
  An FIR was registered under PC Act and IPC for conspiracy and illegal construction.
  The High Court dismissed the appellant’s plea to quash proceedings, leading to this appeal.

• Key Issue: Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be quashed, given the alleged irregularities and subsequent regularization attempt.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

(A) Factual Background

1. Illegal Construction:
   The appellant obtained a permit for "internal renovations" under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, even though no such permission was legally required.
   Instead of renovating, he demolished the old building and constructed a four-storeyed commercial building in a zone where commercial construction was prohibited.
   A stop memo was issued by the Vigilance Department (2006), but the appellant ignored it and completed the construction.

2. Prosecution & Charges:
   A complaint was filed by a businessman (Dr. Biju Ramesh), leading to a vigilance enquiry.
   The enquiry confirmed conspiracy between the appellant and municipal officials.
   An FIR was registered under:
   Section 13(1)(d) PC Act (criminal misconduct by public servants).
   Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy).

3. Appellant’s Defense:
   Claimed the old building collapsed due to heavy rain, forcing him to rebuild.
   Argued that since the Municipal Corporation accepted his regularization request, criminal liability should be dropped.
   Cited a similar case where charges against the architect (Accused No. 7) were quashed.

(B) Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Fraudulent Intent Established:
   The appellant misused the renovation permit to construct a commercial building illegally.
   The stop memo was ignored, proving willful violation.
   The attempt to regularize the illegal construction was a cover-up, not a defense.

2. No Parity with Architect’s Case:
   The architect (Accused No. 7) was merely doing his job and had no role in the conspiracy.
   The appellant, however, was actively involved in the illegal act along with municipal officials.

3. Regularization Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability:
   Mere payment of compounding fees does not erase criminality if the original act was fraudulent.
   The building was in a prohibited zone, making regularization legally untenable.

(C) Final Decision

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.

• Criminal proceedings against the appellant will continue.

• Authorities were directed to take action against the illegal construction without external influence.

5. Conclusion

This judgment reinforces that:

1. Fraudulent construction permits and violation of zoning laws are serious offenses.

2. Attempts to regularize illegal constructions do not nullify criminal liability if the original act involved conspiracy or corruption.

3. Courts will not grant parity in quashing proceedings unless the accused’s role is fundamentally different (as in the architect’s case).

The ruling ensures accountability in urban planning violations and discourages misuse of legal loopholes for illegal constructions.