This Criminal Misc. Case petition sought quashing of an FIR alleging corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court held that the allegations prima facie disclose offences and dismissed the plea, declining to examine merits at this stage.
The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed on merits being irrelevant at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4580 OF 2022
CRIME NO.6/2016 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM, Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
DR RIJI G NAIR,
AGED 61 YEARS. S/O P.K. GANGADHARAN NAIR, RETD
SUPERINTDENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
RESIDING AT SRI SRI HOUSE, THIRUVMULLAVARAM
P.O, KOLLAM-691012., PIN - 691012
BY ADVS.
MAHESH CHANDRAN
C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
ANANDA PADMANABHAN
VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON
UTHARA A.S
VIVEK NAIR P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 6820182 DYSP, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRPUTION BUREAU CENTRAL RANGE, ERNAKULAM – 682 0173 ADV. HRITESH CHANDRAN SANTHI NIVAS, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691505, PIN – 691505 BY SRI A RAJESH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (VIGILANCE) SMT S.REKHA, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADERTHIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
..2..
K.BABU, J
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024
O R D E R
The petitioner seeks to quash FIR No.6 of 2016 registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam. The petitioner is accused No.1 in the crime. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
..3..
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
Consultancy, Thiruvananthapuram, the Managing Director, Prajana Creations Kochi and the Managing Director, Octo plus Innovative Solutions and with dishonest intention entered into an agreement with the above mentioned event management groups (A4 to A6) under the guise of promotion of the growth of Consumer Fed in media and caused monitory loss to the tune of Rs.17 lakhs to the Consumer Fed whereby making unlawful gain to accused Nos. 4 to 6.
..4..
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
the consumer goods in the State of Kerala, in order to give wide publicity regarding the availability of Consumer Fed stores and goods employed various event management groups. The learned counsel submitted that the creative steps taken by the petitioner was instrumental in the opening of huge number of “Triveni Stores”, Medical Stores, Beverages Outlets and “Nanma Stores” under the Consumer Fed throughout the State of Kerala and the turnover of the Consumer Fed raised multi fold during his tenure. The learned counsel submitted that the Vigilance had registered a series of cases in different districts and most of them were dropped. The learned counsel further submitted that Annexure-1 FIR does not disclose any offences as alleged. It is further submitted that the petitioner in his capacity as the Managing Director had only implemented the decision taken by the Board of Directors in good faith. The learned counsel relied on Annexure-A2 counter affidavit
..5..
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
filed by the State in another case before this Court wherein the Vigilance Department took the stand that the registration of various FIRs against the Consumer Fed officials was unnecessary.
..6..
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
(a)The minutes of the Director Board Meeting No.5 of the Consumer Fed held on 27.07.2013 entrusted the Managing Director/petitioner to propagate the growth of Consumer Fed through social media and accorded permission to consider the proposal of the firms managed by accused Nos. 4 to 6 for the same.
(b) But, even long before the decision of the Director Board, on 30.09.2021 itself, the petitioner had given offer letter to S.Anil, Vice President, MD Niche Consultants to propagate the affairs of Consumer Fed in the media. The petitioner had again extended the agreement with M.D. Niche Consultants for the coming three years.
(c)The members of the Director Board gave evidence that the decision related to the media propagation was not submitted before the
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
Director Board for consideration and they have not given any sanction in this regard.
(d)The petitioner had not invited competitive tenders/quotations for the proposed work from different companies and firms working in the field.
(e)The petitioner had directly come into agreement with A4, A5 and A6 in connivance with the IT division of the Consumer Federation headed by accused No.3.
(f)Accused No.4. the Director, Niche Media Consultancy received a sum of Rs.15,94,162/from the Consumer Fed as payment towards media propaganda during the period from 01.10.2011 to 01.04.2014. But there were no materials to show any work done by the said firm. Accused No.5, the Managing Director, Prajana Creations, Kochi worked for a period of six
..8..
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
months from 01.08.2013 and received a sum of Rs.24,500/- from the Consumer Fed as payment towards media propaganda. Accused No.6, Managing Director, Octopus Innovative Solutions worked only for a period of six months and received a sum of Rs.58,800/- from the Consumer Fed as payment towards media propaganda. There are no materials to show any services rendered by these companies during those periods.
(g)The petitioner and accused No.2 organized a meeting without any agenda in Hotel India Habitat World, Lodhi Road, New Delhi on 25.07.2012 without the knowledge of the Director Board. The Consumer Fed spent a sum of Rs.1,17,180/- as expenditure in connection with this meeting. The relevant file would reveal that
..9..
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
the event was an extravagant affair in which liquor etc. was served.
..10..
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
is also settled that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court would have to proceed entirely based on the allegations made in the complaint or in the documents accompanying the same per se. In Binod Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar [2014 (10) SCC 663], the Supreme Court held that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court is not embarked upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein.
[(2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188], the Supreme Court has summarised the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash complaints and criminal proceedings as under : (SCC pp. 747-48, para 12)
“ 12 . The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few— Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
..11..
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234 : AIR 1988 SC 709] , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 : 1995 Supp (4) SCR 237] , CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] , State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628 : (1996) 1 SCR 744] , Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401 : (1999) 1 SCR 1012] , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] . The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
( i ) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
( ii ) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
( iii ) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
( iv ) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
..12..
( v ) A given set of facts may make out : ( a ) purely a civil wrong; or ( b ) purely a criminal offence; or ( c ) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.”
11. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd ,
the Supreme Court held that when a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not and the Court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the Court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.
..13..
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
him in the prosecution records made available do not disclose the offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the FIR is a matter to be tested during the course of investigation. The Crl.M.C. lacks merits and stands dismissed.
It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the FIR.
Sd/-
K.BABU JUDGE
kkj
Crl.M.C. No.4580 of 2022
..14..
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4580/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 06/2016 OF
VACB ERNAKULAM PENDING BEFORE E.C &
S.J MUVATTUPUZHA
Annexure2A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
DATED 01.08.2018 PRODUCED BY THE
VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT
Annexure A4A true copy of the minutes prepared
fortheyear2013-2014dated
27/07/2013
Annexure A6A true copy of the audit certificate
for the financial year 2010-2011
Annexure A6(a)A true copy of the audit certificate
for the financial year 2011-2012
Annexure A3A true copy of clientele of the
company (Accused No.4) procured from
their website
Annexure A5A true copy of some of the media
visibility report prepared by the
agencies
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC.
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the threshold stage.
Whether the innocence of the petitioner as Managing Director negates the prima facie disclosure of offences in the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶34
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v State of Maharashtra and others AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Binod Kumar and Others v. State of BiharRelied on¶58
Binod Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar 2014 (10) SCC 663 · Who else cites this
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd.Relied on¶59
Indian Oil Corpn.v.NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 · Who else cites this
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao AngreRelied on¶61
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre 1988 1 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶64
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh GillRelied on¶64
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194 · Who else cites this
CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.Relied on¶64
CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. Rajendra AgrawallaRelied on¶64
State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla 1996 8 SCC 164 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶64
Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) 1999 3 SCC 259 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr Riji G Nair
State of Kerala
DySP, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau Central Range, Ernakulam
K. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court