JUDGMENT : K. Abraham Mathew, J. 1. The Kerala Water Authority has been providing sewerage services in Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation since 1960. The sewerage line passed through the property which is in the possession of Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) and situated at Pattur, of which the petitioner in W.P. No. 36735 of 2017 (fifth accused) is the Managing Director. At the request of the company, on 7.8.2008, the petitioner in W.P. No. 39469 of 2017 (first accused), the then Executive Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority, ordered shifting of the sewerage line from the property in the possession of the company on its remitting Rs. 14.80 lakhs. Because of the intervention of the Managing Director of the Water Authority, it did not materialise. The Water Authority claimed title to the property through which the sewerage line passed (hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute). But the company again made the same request to the Water Authority, Water Resources Department and Revenue Department. The Vigilance Department requested the Water Authority to protect the puramboke land. By illegal means the 5th accused pursued the issuance of Government Order Rt. No. 1024/14/RD dated 18.2.2014 constituting a committee comprising Land Revenue Commissioner (Chairman), District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, Director Survey and Land Records and Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority (members) for conducting site inspection. Meanwhile, on 8.4.2014 the 6th respondent in W.P. No. 36735 of 2017 (second accused) Executive Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority reported to the Land Revenue Commissioner that the sewerage line passed through the property belonging to the company comprised in Survey No. 1805 B and 1806 B and C, for which he had no authority. The petitioner in W.P. No. 37237 of 2017 (third accused), the then Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, instead of referring the matter to the Water Resources Department accepted the report though it was not endorsed by the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority. The third accused Chief Secretary made the following evasive observation in the relevant file: “It appears that the land through which pipeline passes through is not poramboke. The third accused Chief Secretary made the following evasive observation in the relevant file: “It appears that the land through which pipeline passes through is not poramboke. It appears just and proper that it should be shifted out of Realtors' land so as it does not pose a hindrance to the Realtors plans provided the entire cost for the shifting of the pipeline is borne by the Realtors.” The 8th respondent in W.P. No. 36735 of 2017 (4th accused), the then Chief Minister, approved it. This resulted in the Additional Secretary for the Revenue directing the Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority to take appropriate steps to shift the sewer from the property of the company. The shifting was completed on 3.6.2014. It was done by violating Section 16 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1986, which provides that all assets including sewerage services, sub soil appertaining of the sewers or any pipes shall vest with the Kerala Water Authority. The decision to shift the sewerage line was taken notwithstanding the claim of the Water Authority that the property through which it passed is poramboke and it does not belong to the company. The third accused (Chief Secretary) and the 4th accused (Chief Minister) kept in dark the Minister for the Water Resources and the Principal Secretary of the Department. The illegal order for shifting of the sewer was made to enable the company to construct a high rise building and sell it at a high price. The accused public servants (accused 1 to 4) helped the company whose Managing Director is the 5th accused gain pecuniary advantage, for which the former sacrificed public interest. The Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau suspected commission of the offences U/S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The 5th accused entered into a conspiracy with the other accused to commit the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 18.2.2017 the police officer registered a case for the said offences, the number being 3 of 17 of VACB, SIU-1 Police Station. This is the sum and substance of the FIR prepared in English by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 18.2.2017 the police officer registered a case for the said offences, the number being 3 of 17 of VACB, SIU-1 Police Station. This is the sum and substance of the FIR prepared in English by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The FIR is sought to be quashed by the first, third and fifth accused, who are the petitioners in Writ Petitions 39469, 37237 and 36735 of 2017 respectively in which the second and fourth accused figure as respondents. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel, and the other counsel and the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor (Additional Director General of Prosecution). 3. In this judgment the petitioners and the other accused are referred to as they appear in the FIR, which has been marked Ext P1 in W.P. No. 36735 of 2017. The third accused Bharat Bhushan IAS, the fourth accused Oomman Chandy and the fourth respondent in W.P. (c) No. 36735 of 2017 Leader of the Opposition in the State Legislative Assembly ceased to hold their posts and they are referred to as former Chief Secretary, former Chief Minister and former Leader of the Opposition. The property from which the sewerage line was shifted, which according to the Water Authority, is its property, is referred to as the property in dispute. Unless otherwise stated the documents referred to are those marked in W.P. No. 36735 of 2017. 4. At the outset, it may be stated that the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor submitted that where the First Information Report discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the court cannot quash it. This is not fully correct. It is true that if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, registration of a case is mandatory. This is settled law. In Lalithakumari's case ( AIR 2014 SC 187 ) the Constitution Bench has reaffirmed it. The latest decision of the apex court is State of Telengana vs. Habib Abdulla Jeelani, AIR 2017 SC 373 . 5. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor pressed into service the decision of the apex court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2018 (1) SCALE 97 in support of his argument that where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence investigation is necessary and the court cannot quash the FIR. 5. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor pressed into service the decision of the apex court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Others, 2018 (1) SCALE 97 in support of his argument that where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence investigation is necessary and the court cannot quash the FIR. The Supreme Court held: “At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. It was more so when the material relied on was disputed by the Complainants and visa-se-versa. In such a situation, it becomes the job of the Investigating Authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examined the questions once the charge sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. In our considered opinion, once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code.” 6. A distinction has to be made between a case registered on the information given by a person and a case registered suo motu by a police officer. In the former case, no doubt, the police officer has to investigate into the allegations since without investigation he cannot ascertain the truth of the allegations. (See: Binod Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 663 ). Where a police officer has registered a case suo motu on the basis of some materials which he claims to be in existence, the court certainly can examine whether such materials exist and they disclose a cognizable offence. Registration of a case suo motu by a police officer on assumed facts, or on grounds the falsity of which is revealed even without investigation, or on misconception of laws is a valid ground to put an end to the proceedings initiated by him. 7. It was also submitted by the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor that in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel's case (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that the High Court should not go into minutest details in relation to every aspect of the case. 7. It was also submitted by the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor that in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel's case (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that the High Court should not go into minutest details in relation to every aspect of the case. Having regard to the nature of this case, I only propose to examine whether the statutory provision mentioned in the FIR can form a basis for registration of a case and whether the police officer had sufficient materials before him to take the view that the accused prima facie committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The facts necessary for these purposes alone will be examined. 8. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 the Supreme Court has mentioned the categories of cases in which court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC or extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash First Information Report. Only the first, third and seventh categories in the list given in the judgment are relevant, which are extracted below: Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. This has been reiterated in various decisions of the apex court, the last of which is Binod Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 10 SCC 663 . As observed in Bhajanlal's case, the list given in it is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. 9. Before the sewerage line was shifted, it entered the property in dispute at its northern boundary and thereafter passed diagonally through the property in dispute. As observed in Bhajanlal's case, the list given in it is not exhaustive, but only illustrative. 9. Before the sewerage line was shifted, it entered the property in dispute at its northern boundary and thereafter passed diagonally through the property in dispute. After the shifting, it now passes along the northern boundary of the very same property in dispute in the east-west direction and from its western end it goes through the adjoining piece of land belonging to the government. 10. If the prosecution case that the property in dispute belongs to the Kerala Water Authority is true, the sewerage line is still in the property of the Water Authority; the line was only shifted from one part of its property to another part; no part of it was or is in the land belonging to the company. For the shifting of the sewerage line from one part of the property of the Water Authority to another part, the Government did not incur any expense. On the other hand, it made the company spend about Rs. 30 lakhs. What pecuniary advantage did the shifting of the sewerage line give the company? The company could construct a high rise building and sell it at a high price, the FIR says. The FIR does not say that the shifting enabled the company to construct a building on its own land. Shifting of the line from one part to another part of the Water Authority's property did not entitle the company to construct a building on the Water Authority's land. Only if the land on which the construction has been made belongs to the company and that was made possible by the shifting, the shifting could be said to have given the company pecuniary advantage. But the claim of the company that the land from which the sewerage line was shifted and the construction has been made belongs to it is specifically denied by the prosecution as well as the 4th respondent former Leader of the Opposition in the Kerala Legislative Assembly and who has filed a complaint (Ext R4(a)/3) before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge concerned with regard to the very same allegations made in the FIR. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the former Leader of the opposition only attempted to stonewall it. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the former Leader of the opposition only attempted to stonewall it. The prosecution has no case that it was the order to shift the line that enabled the company to occupy the land in dispute - which, in fact, was in its possession long before the order - or to make any construction on it. It is not any of the accused public servants who granted permission to the company to construct the building in the property in dispute, but the local authority. The accused public servants had no role in it. For this reason alone, the FIR can be quashed. 11. The material facts on the basis of which the case was registered are mentioned below: (i) The first accused Executive Engineer of the Water Authority allowed shifting of the sewerage line from the property comprised in Survey No. 1843/3. (ii) The second accused Executive Engineer reported to the government that the sewerage line passed through the properties comprised in Survey No. 1805B and 1806B and C belonging to the company. (iii) The committee constituted by the government reported after enquiry that the company possessed 9.661 cents of excess land comprised in Survey Nos. 1805A and 1806A. (iv) The property through which the sewerage line passed is vested in the Kerala Water Authority and it is puramboke. But the third accused Chief Secretary took the view that it belongs to the company, which was approved by the fourth accused Chief Minister. 12. The First Information Report does not mention the survey number of the property through which the sewerage line passed. Nor does it say that the properties comprised in Survey No. 1805B or 1806B or 1806C or 1843/3, which are the survey numbers mentioned in it (FIR) are properties of the government or the Kerala Water Authority. What the FIR says is that there was a vesting in the Kerala Water Authority of the property through which the sewerage line passed by virtue of Section 16 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act. 13. The Water Authority's claim of title to the property in dispute rests on Section 16 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act alone, which in turn is the foundation of the prosecution case. 13. The Water Authority's claim of title to the property in dispute rests on Section 16 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act alone, which in turn is the foundation of the prosecution case. When the case was registered, there was no document evidencing the Water Authority's title to or right in the property. The claim was based on the mere assumption or belief that the Authority laid pipes only through puramboke or acquired properties. If there is no vesting of the property under Section 16 of the said Act, there is no foundation for the prosecution case and the FIR is liable to be quashed. 14. What is the nature of the right Section 16 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, which runs as follows, confers on the Water Authority. (1) As from the date of establishment of the Authority (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as the appointed day):- (a) (i) all properties and assets (including water works, buildings, laboratories, stores, vehicles, furniture and other furnishing), all the existing water supply and sewerage services, sewerage works and sewage farms including, as the case may be, all plants, machineries, water works, pumping stations, filter beds, water mains and public sewers in, along, over or under any public street and all buildings, lands and other works, materials, stores and things appertaining thereto. (ii) so much of the sub-soil appertaining to the said water mains and sewers as may be necessary for the purpose of enlarging, deepening or otherwise repairing or maintaining any such water mains and sewers or any pipes and other appliances and fittings connected with such water supply and sewerage services and sewage works and sewage farms which immediately before the appointed day were vested in the Government for the purposes of the Public Health Engineering Department, shall vest in and stand transferred to the Authority. (b) (i) all the water supply and sewerage services, sewerage works and sewage farms including all the plants, machineries, pumping stations, distribution lines and public sewers in, along, over or under any public street and all buildings, lands and other works, materials, stores and things appertaining thereto. (b) (i) all the water supply and sewerage services, sewerage works and sewage farms including all the plants, machineries, pumping stations, distribution lines and public sewers in, along, over or under any public street and all buildings, lands and other works, materials, stores and things appertaining thereto. (ii) so much of sub-soil appertaining to the said distributions lines and sewers as may be necessary for the purpose of enlarging, deepening or otherwise repairing on maintaining any such distribution lines and sewers or any pipes and other appliances and fittings connected with such water supply and sewerage services and sewerage works vested in any local body and in respect of which maintenance of sewerage services and sewerage works, management and distribution of water supply or collection of charges which immediately before the appointed day were attended to by the Public Health Engineering Department, shall vest in and stand transferred to the Authority. (c) omitted (d) omitted (2) omitted (3) omitted. 15. Section 16 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1986 does not create any new right in the property through which a sewer of the Water Authority is laid. It only effects transfer of the right which the government, (the Public Health Engineering Department) already had in the property, assets, sewerage services, sewerage works etc. The State has no case that the government had any right or title to the property in dispute when the Act came into force. The FIR also does not mention any such right. This knocks the bottom out of the prosecution case. The foundation upon which the case is built up in the FIR is wrong understanding of the provision contained in Section 16 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1986. The provision of law on the basis of which the Water Authority makes the claim being not applicable, the FIR is only a sucked out egg; there is no substance on it. This is yet another ground to quash the FIR. 16. Realizing the futility in relying on S.16 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition attempted to prop up the case saying that the property in dispute is puramboke as distinguished from the property of the Water Authority. True, the word puramboke is mentioned in the FIR. 17. State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition attempted to prop up the case saying that the property in dispute is puramboke as distinguished from the property of the Water Authority. True, the word puramboke is mentioned in the FIR. 17. puramboke is defined in Section 4(1) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act 1957. It means and includes un-assessed lands which are the property of Government under Section 3(1) or (2) used or reserved for public purposes or for the communal use of villagers. Under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act or all lands wheresoever situated, all public roads, streets, beds and bank of rivers, streams, irrigation and drainage channels and water courses except the following are the property of Government: (a) [Jenmies, wargdars] or holders of Inams. (b) [persons registered in the revenue records as] holders of lands in any way subject to the payment of land revenue to the Government. (c) any other registered holder of land in proprietary right. (d) any person holding land under grant from the Government otherwise than by way of a [lease or licence]. (e) any person claiming through or holding under any of the persons referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d), are and are hereby declared to be, the property of Government, except as may be otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, subject to all rights of way and other public rights and to the natural and easement rights of other land owners and to all customary rights legally subsisting. (Sub Section 2 being irrelevant for the present purpose is omitted). 18. In the Explanation (IV) to Section 3(1) it is provided that lands belonging to any Panchayat or any Municipality or any Municipal Corporation shall be deemed to be the property of Government. Though the Kerala Water Authority established by Section 3(1) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1986 is an autonomous authority, for all purposes it is deemed to be a local authority as provided in Sub Section(3) of Section 3. Local authority is not defined in this Act. Section 2(xii) defines local body as a City Corporation, a Municipal Council, a Township or a Panchayath. Local authority is not defined in this Act. Section 2(xii) defines local body as a City Corporation, a Municipal Council, a Township or a Panchayath. When all these provisions are read together, it appears that the land belonging to Kerala Water Authority is property of Government under Section 3(1) of the Land Conservancy Act and it is puramboke as defined in Section 4(1) of the said Act. It does not make any difference whether the property in dispute belongs to the Government or the Water Authority; it is puramboke if it belongs to either of them. 19. Learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor lastly submitted that the foundation of the FIR is not only shifting of the pipeline, but also shifting of its alignment. The case has been registered under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Though the FIR does not disclose under which of the three sub clauses in Section 13(i)(d) the case has been registered, the learned Addl. State Prosecutor submits that the facts of the case attract only Sub Clause 3 of Section 13(1)(d) PC Act. The Sub Clause runs as follows: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct. (a) omitted (b) omitted (c) omitted (d) if he (i) omitted (ii) omitted (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any pubic interest. Thus, obtaining pecuniary advantage for the company without public interest is the offence the accused public servants are alleged to have committed. How did the company get pecuniary advantage. The FIR discloses it in these words. “The private builder has received undue advantage by shifting of the sewerage pipeline along the boundary of the site so that high rise building could be constructed and sold at high value which is a private pecuniary interest.” But the learned Addl. State Prosecutor has brought to my notice the following statement in the FIR: “It is revealed in the enquiry that instead of protecting larger public interest of maintaining the sewerage pipeline adhering alignment which was laid decades before was shifted to sue the private interest of the realtors to accomplish construction of extent of floor area for achieving pecuniary advantage to the realtors.” (sic) The change of alignment is the result of the shifting of the line. One is the cause and the other the effect. It is the shifting of the line which forms the foundation of the FIR. The submission of the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor that the shifting of the alignment of the sewerage line is an independent allegation has no merits. 20. In the FIR two illegalities are specifically mentioned. (i) There was illegality in issuing the Government Order (GO (Rt.) No. 1024/14/RD dated 18.2.2014) by which a four member committee was constituted. (ii) The order for shifting was passed behind the back of the Water Resources Department. 21. Though the FIR does not disclose the illegality committed in issuing the Government Order, the illegality was revealed in the argument of the learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition. “The Chief Secretary had no authority to constitute the committee and the committee had not been asked to report whether the sewerage line should be shifted.” 22. On 18.2.2014 by GO (Rt) No. 1024/14/RD the Government constituted a committee consisting of the following members for conducting joint site inspection and report on the issues regarding dispute over the ownership of land and allegation of illegal building construction and encroachment in the puramboke land of 20 cents having Survey Nos.1830 and 1831 at Pattoor in Vanchiyoor Village of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, through which the main sewerage line of Kerala Water Authority passes (vide Ext P4 in W.P. (c) No. 37237 of 2017) (i) Commissioner, Land Revenue (ii) District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram (iii) Director, Survey and Land Records (iv) Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority 23. The request of the company for the shifting of the sewerage line was under the consideration of the Water Resources Department for a long period. There were conflicting reports by two District Collectors with regard to the title to the property in dispute. The first report said that the sewerage line passed through puramboke; the second report stated that it passed through the company's property. The Vigilance Department also informed the government that the property in dispute is puramboke. In the file maintained by the Water Resources Department an endorsement was made by an officer that the Water Authority used to lay pipes only through puramboke or through acquired property and so the claim of the company was liable to be rejected. These facts were taken note of by the Addl. In the file maintained by the Water Resources Department an endorsement was made by an officer that the Water Authority used to lay pipes only through puramboke or through acquired property and so the claim of the company was liable to be rejected. These facts were taken note of by the Addl. Chief Secretary of the Water Resources Department, who made the following endorsement in the file: “Two District Collectors have given different opinions. It is suggested that the whole gamut of issues may be examined by a committee consisting of the following persons: (a) Secretary, Revenue (b) Land Revenue Commissioner (c) Director of Survey and Land Records (d) Technical Member, Kerala Water Authority We may take a final decision based on their finding and reports. 24. Meanwhile, on 30.5.2013 the fourth accused former Chief Minister sent for the file from the Water Resources Department. Accordingly, on 26.6.2013 the Addl. Chief Secretary directed his office to send the file to the Chief Minister through the Minister of Water Resources, which was done. On 3.7.2013 by the Judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 16698 of 2013 filed by the company requesting the government to dispose of the application filed by him for shifting the sewerage line, this court directed “the Addl. Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department to consider the application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment” (vide Ext R4(a)/26). On 17.7.2013 the following endorsement was made in the file of the Water Resources Department: “File may be circulated to Hon'ble Chief Minister for orders with special reference to the direction of the Vigilance Department.” The Addl. Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department has endorsed it. This was seen by the Minister for Water Resources on 23.7.2013. On the next day, the former Chief Minister made the following endorsement on the file: “OK. Since the Vigilance report is against the District Collector's report, Secretary, Revenue should conduct a quick enquiry to find out the facts and suggest appropriate action.” The file was sent to the Secretary, Revenue Department, which reached him on 27.9.2013 (vide Ext R4(a)/102). On the next day, the former Chief Minister made the following endorsement on the file: “OK. Since the Vigilance report is against the District Collector's report, Secretary, Revenue should conduct a quick enquiry to find out the facts and suggest appropriate action.” The file was sent to the Secretary, Revenue Department, which reached him on 27.9.2013 (vide Ext R4(a)/102). Accordingly, the Revenue Secretary inspected the property on 5.10.2013 in the presence of the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, Deputy Collector (LR), Thiruvananthapuram, officials of the Kerala Water Authority and representatives of the company. The Secretary, Revenue Department felt that a detailed and comprehensive report of the District Collector and further remarks of the Vigilance Department were necessary to take a decision (vide Ext R4(a)/106). The District Collector appears to have submitted a report. He informed the Revenue Secretary that the property in dispute was private property and not puramboke and the Managing Director, Water Authority was informed of it. The measurement of the property in dispute was made on the basis of all the available records. The Collector sent to the Revenue Secretary a copy of the Settlement Register. The file was seen by the Minister for Revenue. Thereafter, it was sent to the former Chief Minister who, after taking notice of the confusion created by various reports, passed the following order on 29.11.2014. “Since difference of opinion is seen in the report of District Collector, VACB (Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau), Land Revenue Commissioner and Secretary Revenue, Chief Secretary may please examine the matter in detail and offer remarks to settle the issue.” The former Chief Secretary recommended that a committee consisting of Land Revenue Commissioner, District Collector, Director Survey and Land Records and Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority should be constituted to enquire into the matter. It was thereupon the government issued the order constituting the committee which in the FIR is shown to have been obtained by illegal means. 25. Learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition would say that the former Chief Secretary had no authority to constitute the committee. It was thereupon the government issued the order constituting the committee which in the FIR is shown to have been obtained by illegal means. 25. Learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition would say that the former Chief Secretary had no authority to constitute the committee. He further submits that notings made in government files do not constitute orders of the government, for which he relies on the decisions of the apex court in Shanti Sports Club and Another vs. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705 and State of Uttaranchal and Another vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 670 . Ext P4 (in W.P. No. 37237 of 2017) is a formal order issued by the government. It was not the former Chief Secretary, who constituted the committee, but the government. The former Chief Secretary recommended constitution of the committee because the former Chief Minister wanted him to give him advice as to how the dispute could be settled. I do not find anything wrong in the former Chief Secretary's making the recommendation. It was not he who constituted the committee, but the government. 26. At the hearing it was submitted that the fourth accused former Chief Minister unauthorisedly interfered in the matter. As stated earlier, it was the Addl. Chief Secretary of Water Resources Department who first recommended constitution of a committee like the one constituted by the government to resolve the issue. Neither the Addl. State Prosecutor, nor the learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition disputed that the only authority to constitute such a committee was the Chief Minister. Still he is alleged to have constituted the committee without any authority (The power of the Chief Minister to take a decision in the situation like the present one has been discussed in paragraphs 38 to 44) 27. The statement in the FIR that there was illegality in issuing the Government Order constituting the committee is only an imagination of the police officer concerned and it betrays his ignorance in the relevant field. 28. The company was in possession of the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 1805 A and B, 1806 A, B and C, 1828/1 pt, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833 pt and 1834/2pt. 28. The company was in possession of the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 1805 A and B, 1806 A, B and C, 1828/1 pt, 1829, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833 pt and 1834/2pt. The committee reported that an extent of 2.48 ares (6.18 cents) comprised in Survey No. 1805/A and 1.43 ares (3.533 cents) comprised in survey No. 1806/A are puramboke in illegal possession of the company. The committee further entered a finding that the property comprised in Survey No. 1805/B through which the sewerage line passed belongs to the company and it is not puramboke (vide Ext P5). The Group Sketch prepared by the surveyors and the Settlement Register were enclosed with the Report. 29. Neither learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor, nor the learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition has a case that the report of the committee is a manipulated one. There is no allegation that during the inspection of the committee officials of any of the departments concerned including the Water Resources Department/Water Authority were not present. 30. On receipt of the report (Ext R4(a)/121) the former Chief Secretary made the following remarks: “From a reading of the committee report it appears that the land through which the pipeline passes through is not puramboke land. It appears just and proper that it should be shifted out of the realtor's land so that it does not cause a hindrance to his plans, provided the entire costs for the shifting of the pipeline is borne by the realtor. If there is any technical difficulty in adhering to this alignment the realtor should be ready for the pipeline to be shifted in such a way within his property so that his plans for utilising his land are not affected adversely” (realtor is the company). In the FIR this remark is referred to as evasive noting, the meaning of which one fails to understand. The word appears also means manifest. As a responsible officer of the State, it was the duty of the former Chief Secretary to express his opinion before the file was submitted to the former Chief Minister. 31. Learned counsel for the Leader of the Opposition submitted that it was on the basis of the report of the Executive Engineer of the Sewerage Division of the Water Authority the former Chief Secretary also took the view that the property in dispute belongs to the company. 31. Learned counsel for the Leader of the Opposition submitted that it was on the basis of the report of the Executive Engineer of the Sewerage Division of the Water Authority the former Chief Secretary also took the view that the property in dispute belongs to the company. It is true that in paragraph 3 in Ext P5 report of the committee there is a statement that the said officer of the Water Authority reported that the property in dispute belongs to the company. But that was not the basis on which the committee or the former Chief Secretary came to the conclusion that the property in dispute belongs to the company, but on the measurements made by competent officers of the state. Merely because in the report of the committee there is a mention about the report given by the said officer of the Water Authority, it cannot be said that that was the basis for the finding of the committee or the conclusion of the former Chief Secretary. 32. One of the accusations in the FIR is this: “The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department and Water Resources Minister were kept in dark while taking decision regarding a subject of Kerala Water Authority was taken by A3 and A4” (sic). In other words, the third accused former Chief Secretary and the fourth accused former Chief Minister took the decision behind the back of the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department and the Minister for Water Resources with intent to help the company. 33. There is no basis for the allegation that the third accused former Chief Secretary joined the fourth accused former Chief Minister in taking the decision to shift the sewerage line. The Chief Secretary only made his remarks on the report submitted by the committee. It was his duty and right to do so. 34. The report of the committee was not signed by the Managing Director of the Water Authority, who was on the committee. For this reason, it is submitted, the former Chief Secretary should not have recommended approval of the report and the former Chief Minister should not have accepted the recommendation. They are not to blame for the Managing Director's not signing the report. One can only take a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. It was not a statutory committee. They are not to blame for the Managing Director's not signing the report. One can only take a horse to water, but cannot make it drink. It was not a statutory committee. The absence of the signature of the Managing Director of the Water Authority does not affect the acceptability of the report. The government was not bound to throw away the report; there was no impropriety in acting upon it. 35. Yet another submission of the learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition is that the committee was constituted not to report whether the sewerage line should be shifted and the report, in fact, did not make any such recommendation, but the former Chief Secretary recommended shifting of the sewerage line. The object of ordering the enquiry by the committee was to facilitate disposal of the file relating to the request of the company to shift the sewerage line. The argument is not even worthy of notice. 36. The Government Order (Ext P6) for shifting of the sewerage line issued by Addl. Secretary for Principal Secretary to Government is attacked on three grounds: (a) Before the decision was taken the Water Resources Department was not consulted. (b) The Chief Minister had no authority to take a decision concerning a file relating to the Water Resources Department. (c) The competent authority to issue the order was Secretary, Water Resources Department. 37. At this stage it may again be mentioned that the Addl. Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department had observed that a final decision with regard to the dispute could be taken on the basis of the report and the finding of the committee. This was actually what the fourth accused former Chief Minister did. The only question is whether there was any procedural illegality or irregularity. 38. Learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition placed reliance on certain rules in the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala (hereinafter called the Rules of Business) which has been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (2) and (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. 39. My attention was first drawn to Rule 4 in the Rules of Business. It appears in Section 1 in Part 1 in the Rules of Business. The Rules in Section 1 deal with allocation and disposal of business. 39. My attention was first drawn to Rule 4 in the Rules of Business. It appears in Section 1 in Part 1 in the Rules of Business. The Rules in Section 1 deal with allocation and disposal of business. Rule 4 is extracted below: The Business of the Government shall be transacted in the Department specified in the First Schedule, and shall be classified and distributed between those departments as laid down therein. Entry No. 12 under the head Water Resources Department relates to Water Supply and Sanitation. Kerala Water Authority comes under this head. Thus, matters relating to the Kerala Water Authority have been allocated to the Water Resources Department. 40. The shifting of the sewerage turned out to be a matter concerning more than one department. Rule 18 in the Rules of Business runs as follows: In cases which concern more Ministers than one, the Ministers shall attempt previous discussion to arrive at an agreement. If an agreement is reached, the Memorandum referred to in rule 16 or 17 shall contain the joint recommendations of the Ministers; and if no agreement is reached, the Memorandum shall state the points of difference and the recommendations of each of the Ministers concerned. If for any reason the discussion does not materialise one of the Ministers concerned may bring the fact to the notice of the Chief Minister who may order that the matter be placed before the Council. This Rule is applicable only if the matter requires consideration by the Council of Ministers. The matters which are to be dealt with by the Council of Ministers are given in Schedule 1 in the Rules of Business. Shifting of the pipeline is not a matter to be considered by the Council of Ministers. So Rule 18 has no application in this case. 41. Another submission of the Addl. State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition is that under Rule 26 of the Rules of Business the order should not have been issued unless the matter was considered by all the departments concerned. Rule 26 runs as follows: When the subject of a case concerns more than one department no order shall be issued nor shall the case be laid before the Council of Ministers until it has been considered by all the departments concerned unless the case is one of extreme urgency. Rule 26 runs as follows: When the subject of a case concerns more than one department no order shall be issued nor shall the case be laid before the Council of Ministers until it has been considered by all the departments concerned unless the case is one of extreme urgency. Note:- The requirements of this rule shall not be deemed to have been satisfied merely by reason of the fact that a case was seen by a particular department at a certain stage, if after the date of such reference the case has undergone material modification as a result of further discussion and noting and the case as finally proposed to be circulated differs materially from the case as originally referred to the other department. This Rule appears in Section III in part I. The said Section speaks of Departmental Disposal of Business. 42. Rule 22 requires notice in this connection. It runs thus: Except as otherwise provided by any other rule, cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by or under the authority of the Minister in charge who may by means of standing orders give such directions as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in the department. Copies of such standing orders shall be sent to the Governor and the Chief Minister. So the ordinary rule for disposal of cases is that it shall be done by or under the authority of the Minister in-charge of the department. Rule 22 makes it clear that it is subject to the exceptions given in the Rules of Business. Two such exceptions are seen in Rules 27 and 28 (4) (a) and (b). The Rules run thus: 27. If the departments concerned are not in agreement regarding the case dealt with under rule 26, the Minister in charge of the Department may, if he wishes to proceed with the case, direct that the case be submitted to the Chief Minister. 28. (4)(a). The Chief Secretary may on the orders of the Chief Minister or of any Minister or of his own motion, ask to see papers relating to any case in any department including the Finance and the General Administration (Special) Departments and papers relating to anti-corruption enquiries and such request shall be complied with by the Secretary of the department concerned. The Chief Secretary may on the orders of the Chief Minister or of any Minister or of his own motion, ask to see papers relating to any case in any department including the Finance and the General Administration (Special) Departments and papers relating to anti-corruption enquiries and such request shall be complied with by the Secretary of the department concerned. (b) The Chief Secretary may, after examination of the case submit it for the orders of the Minister in charge or the Chief Minister through the Minister in charge. 43. There is a purpose behind every rule. What is the purpose of submitting the file to the Chief Minister when the several departments concerned in a case are not in agreement. It is for his comment, remarks, recommendation or advice? Or, is it for disposal of the case? Rule 27 comes under the head Departmental Disposal of Business. Rule 22, as mentioned earlier, provides that ordinarily, a case shall be disposed of by the Minister concerned. In the circumstance mentioned in Rule 27 the file has to be submitted to the Chief Minister. No rule provides the procedure to be followed by the Chief Minister. There is no requirement that the Chief Minister should consult anyone or take the advice of anyone. The file is required to be submitted to the Chief Minister because the departments of the other ministers concerned cannot dispose it of. It is clear that the file is submitted to the Chief Minister for disposal, and for no other purpose. 44. When a file is sent to any person other than a Secretary or Minister concerned, the purpose for which it is sent is specifically mentioned in the rules. Rule 28(3) is relevant in this context. This Rule empowers a Minister to send for any paper from any department for his information in certain circumstances. The procedure to be followed also is prescribed in Rule 28(3). Rule 28(1) empowers even a Secretary to peruse the papers belonging to any department other than the Finance and General Administration (Special) Department if such papers are required for disposal of a case in his department. This also lends support to the conclusion that under Rule 27 the file is submitted to the Chief Minister not for any restricted purpose but for final disposal. 45. This also lends support to the conclusion that under Rule 27 the file is submitted to the Chief Minister not for any restricted purpose but for final disposal. 45. The government does not have the authority to take a decision in a matter relating to the Water Authority since it is an autonomous institution, it submitted. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in K.K. Bhalla vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 581 and of this court in Kerala Water Authority and Another vs. P.T. Chacko, (2008) 2 KHC 321. Mention has already been made that the Addl. Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department took the view that final decision could be taken after the committee proposed by him filed its report. The Water Authority comes under the Water Resources Department. The submission has not much relevance because the question in this case is whether the provisions of the P.C Act are attracted. Moreover, Section 17 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerages Act, which is extracted below, gives power to the government to take a decision on the issue involved in this case: Where any doubt or dispute arises as to whether any property or asset has vested in the Authority under section 16 or any rights, liabilities or obligations have become the rights, liabilities or obligations of the Authority under that section, such doubt or dispute shall be referred to the government whose decision therein shall be final. 46. The events that took place after the government's passing the order on 2.5.2014 to shift the sewerage line and before the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Sri. Jacob Thomas (IPS) issuing orders on 19.8.2016 for a quick verification, which resulted in the registration of the case on 18.2.2017, assume much importance in the nature and circumstances of the case. 47. A complaint (Ext P7) came to be filed on 26.6.2014 before the Lok Ayukta alleging corruption, abuse of powers etc with regard to the construction of the building by the company and shifting of the sewerage line. The third accused former Chief Secretary and the fifth accused Managing Director of the company were respondents 1 and 11 respectively in the complaint; the other accused are not respondents. On 30.7.2014 the Lok Ayukta passed Ext P8 order directing an investigation by Jacob Thomas, IPS Addl. The third accused former Chief Secretary and the fifth accused Managing Director of the company were respondents 1 and 11 respectively in the complaint; the other accused are not respondents. On 30.7.2014 the Lok Ayukta passed Ext P8 order directing an investigation by Jacob Thomas, IPS Addl. Director General of Police who was the then Addl. Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. He was given the liberty to constitute a special team for the investigation. Thereafter, by Ext P9 order passed on 22.8.2014 the Lok Ayukta appointed an Advocate Commissioner to measure the properties involved in the dispute with the help of the Taluk Surveyor, Thiruvananthapuram. Jacob Thomas and Advocate Sri. K.B. Pradeep who was appointed by amicus curiae by Lok Ayukta were present during the measurement as directed by the Lok Ayukta. 48. On or about 5.2.2015 the Advocate Commissioner submitted his report (Ext P10) before the Lok Ayukta. One of the documents on the basis of which the measurement was made was the Settlement Register of 1901. The commissioner reported that the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 1805A and 1806A are puramboke and the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 1805B, 1806B & 1830C and 1831 are not; the sewerage line before its shifting passed through the property comprised in Survey No. 1805B and 1806B and C. This goes with the finding of the committee appointed by the Government. 49. Before the Commissioner filed the report Jacob Thomas submitted his Ext P11 investigation report on 19.11.2014. He told the Lok Ayukta: “In the present petition, it is revealed that while holding office as public servants, obtained for Respondents 10 and 11, pecuniary advantage by shifting of the sewerage line along the boundary of the site so that high rise buildings could be constructed and sold at high value, which is a private pecuniary interest” (sic). He recommended registration of a case under Section 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) PC Act 1988 “against the persons who made decisions and whose decisions obtained pecuniary advantage to the private interest.............” 50. On 12.1.2015 the complainant before the Lok Ayukta lodged a complaint with Jacob Thomas requesting him to register a case in the light of the revelations made by him in his report submitted before the Lok Ayukta on 19.11.2014. On 12.1.2015 the complainant before the Lok Ayukta lodged a complaint with Jacob Thomas requesting him to register a case in the light of the revelations made by him in his report submitted before the Lok Ayukta on 19.11.2014. On 27.1.2015 Jacob Thomas informed the complainant “As the enquiry report is under consideration of the Kerala Lok Ayukta it is not proper for the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau to register a case and conduct investigation on the subject at the moment.” Thereupon, the complainant filed Writ Petition No. 4677 of 2015. By Ext P14 judgment a division bench of this court dismissed it. 51. About three months later, the former Leader of the Opposition filed Ext R4(a)/128 complaint before the Superintendent of Police concerned requesting him to register a case against the former Chief Minister, the former Chief Secretary, the Managing Director of the Company and some IAS officers u/s.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The police officer informed him that in view of the pendency of the complaint before the Lok Ayukta case could not be registered. The police officer also invited his attention to the judgment of this court in the Writ Petition referred to above (vide Ext R4(a)/137). 52. About 1½ years later, while the matter was still under the consideration of the Lok Ayukta, Jacob Thomas suo motu ordered a quick verification by his subordinate officer. 53. In the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to draw support from the reports filed by the committee constituted by the Government and the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Lok Ayukta. The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition lost no time to submit that in the report submitted by Jacob Thomas before the Lok Ayukta there is an observation that the Settlement Register on the basis of which the committee and the Advocate Commissioner reached their conclusions is a fabricated one. This register which was prepared in 1904 gives particulars of the properties situated in certain parts of the erstwhile Travancore Kingdom of which the present Thiruvananthapuram district was a part. The survey number, tenure, extent, nature, name of title holders etc of the properties are recorded in it. 54. This register which was prepared in 1904 gives particulars of the properties situated in certain parts of the erstwhile Travancore Kingdom of which the present Thiruvananthapuram district was a part. The survey number, tenure, extent, nature, name of title holders etc of the properties are recorded in it. 54. In paragraph 06.15 in the report submitted before Lok Ayukta Jacob Thomas writes: “Even the authenticity of the current Settlement Register is doubtful, whether it is a completely rewritten document at a later date and then destroying the original to destroy evidence. The script of Malayalam written and the look of paper points to such a possibility. Only a scientific examination through carbon dating technique can ascertain the fact and authenticity of this register, in order to clear even this slightest doubt” (sic). 55. The Settlement Register produced before the Lok Ayukta was sent for. It is a mutilated one. Its condition is such that one cannot even touch it for fear of its total destruction. On the face of it, it is an ancient document. The report of the Commissioner appointed by the Lok Ayukta says that it was obtained from the State Archives. Neither the learned Public Prosecutor, nor the learned counsel for the former Leader of the Opposition could explain the apparent false allegation of Jacob Thomas. So a notice was issued to him to appear in person and explain his statement. He appeared in person only to repudiate the report which bears his signature. He attempted to wriggle out stating that what he meant was not Settlement Register but some other register. This court directed him to give his explanation in writing. But he did not avail himself of the opportunity. The inference is that he has no explanation. After stating a blatant falsehood in his report, he had no compunction to quote George Orwell in his report filed in the Lok Ayukta: “In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act”. One can only lament, what a paradox. 56. Jacob Thomas disappeared from the court only to appear in social media. Instead of submitting his explanation in the court, he posted a comment in his face book account, which can be taken judicial notice of. One can only lament, what a paradox. 56. Jacob Thomas disappeared from the court only to appear in social media. Instead of submitting his explanation in the court, he posted a comment in his face book account, which can be taken judicial notice of. A free English translation of the comment in Malayalam is given below: Lesson - 5 Statement of Accounts of the Truth The truth buried under pipes 30 cents Construction above the pipe 15 stories Market value of one cent 30 lakhs Total market value 900 lakhs Number of honest persons 5 The face of the truth is like sewerage pipe (This was published in the Malayala Manorama daily newspaper on 20.1.2018) 57. The above comment is innuendo. The five honest people are the five accused in the present case. A division bench of this court in Kayiath Damodaran vs. Induchoodan and Others, 1961 KLT 345 held: “Now, it is well-settled that abusing and vilifying parties to a pending proceeding, in relation to the proceeding, amounts to contempt.” This was followed by another division bench in Advocate General, Kerala vs. Kunchacko, 1965 KLT 871 . It is outrageous that a police officer, that too a Director General of Police, resorted to character assassination on social media of the accused when he was told by the court that one of the main allegations on the basis of which the case happened to be registered appeared to be false. It is high time that he was taught the lessons of discipline. No doubt, on the facts of the case it is appropriate to proceed against him. But, I think, it is more appropriate to despise his act with the contempt it deserves and close the chapter. And I do so. 58. Though it is for the Lok Ayukta to decide upon the acceptability of the report submitted by Jacob Thomas before it, examination of certain facts contained in it becomes necessary for two reasons: (i) The First Information Report prepared by his subordinate officer is an abridged version of his report. (ii) It helps the court to understand the facts and circumstances which led to the registration of the case. 59. (ii) It helps the court to understand the facts and circumstances which led to the registration of the case. 59. In paragraph 06.6 in the report of Jacob Thomas it is written that the report of the committee constituted by the government: “Is full of errors and therefore, led to erroneous conclusions probably because the four committee members do not jointly visit the site or discharge the responsibility as public duty as defined in S.2(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act.” (sic). For this he claims to have relied on the Puramboke Register and the Settlement Register. Mention has already been made that he dubbed the Settlement Register a fabricated document. Is it that Settlement Register he relied on, or is it a different one? There is no explanation. Jacob Thomas did not independently make any measurements in the property. Still he would say that the measurements done under the supervision of the committee constituted by the government is full of errors. 60. The report reveals that relevant Volume of Pokuvaravu Register, Application filed in 2006 before the Corporation of Thiruvanaathapuram, Field Measurement Book, Acquisition Register, Acquisition file, Original Design of the pipeline in 1965 etc are missing. Unless there is evidence to show that there was acquisition, there is no meaning in saying that registers and documents relating to acquisition are missing. The police officer could have easily ascertained whether the property in dispute was acquired by verifying the gazette of the relevant period. The other documents which are reportedly missing are not necessary to ascertain whether the property in dispute is puramboke or private land. Settlement Register and Puramboke Register along with survey records will serve the purpose. And those registers are available. 61. Jacob Thomas refused to register a case for the offences under the PC Act on the complaint filed by the person who filed the complaint before the Lok Ayukta. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau refused to register a case on the complaint filed by the Leader of the Opposition. The ground stated was that as the matter was under consideration of the Lok Ayukta it was not proper to register a case. But about 1½ years later, Jacob Thomas suo motu ordered a quick verification notwithstanding the pendency of the complaint before the Lok Ayukta. How the impropriety disappeared in the thin air in 1½ years. 62. The ground stated was that as the matter was under consideration of the Lok Ayukta it was not proper to register a case. But about 1½ years later, Jacob Thomas suo motu ordered a quick verification notwithstanding the pendency of the complaint before the Lok Ayukta. How the impropriety disappeared in the thin air in 1½ years. 62. The committee constituted by the Government and the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Lok Ayukta reported that the property in dispute is not puramboke, but private land. The bench of the Lok Ayukta passed an order on 6.2.2015. Separate orders were written by the Lok Ayukta and the Upa Lok Ayukta. In his order the Upa Lok Ayukta has stated: “There is nothing wrong in the sewerage line being allowed to be shifted from private land on request and that too at the expense of the land owner/builder himself with no lose caused to the Government. The hue and cry alleging corruption in that matter was unfounded and was made with ulterior motives. However that has enabled the matter being investigated into and the appropriation of the government land by the builder could be averted.” 63. Thus, quick verification was ordered in spite of the report of the committee constituted by the government, and of the commissioner appointed by the Lok Ayukta and the observation in the order passed by the Lok Ayukta that the property in dispute is private land. At the same time, except the assumptions and the false statement made in the report of Jacob Thomas, there was no material for him to take the view that the property in dispute is puramboke. He even overruled the Lok Ayukta. 64. The Lok Ayukta which reposed confidence in Jacob Thomas and entrusted him with the investigation of the case before it was disturbed by the aberrations in his conduct. No doubt, his conduct is unbecoming of a police officer, especially of IPS cadre and particularly of D.G.P. rank. Greatness lies in not having power, but in the right use of it. 65. What has happened in this case is that the Addl. No doubt, his conduct is unbecoming of a police officer, especially of IPS cadre and particularly of D.G.P. rank. Greatness lies in not having power, but in the right use of it. 65. What has happened in this case is that the Addl. Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau prepared a report containing assumed facts and even falsehood and submitted it before the Lok Ayukta and on its basis he suo motu ordered a quick verification and thereupon, his subordinate officer after conducting a quick verification registered the case, the FIR (Ext P1) in which is only a condensed form of the report of his superior officer. This is against the spirit of the various judgments of the Supreme Court in various cases starting from Sirajudheen, AIR 1971 SC 520 and ending with Lalithakumari, AIR 2014 SC 187 . Preconceptions and misconceptions, predilections and predeterminations of a police officer shall not be the basis for registration of a case, especially, for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 66. The committee constituted by the government felt that it is necessary to further probe as to the extent of the property the company can claim on the basis of its title deeds. But that is irrelevant for this case because the question here is not whether the company in possession of land in excess of the area to which it is entitled under its title deeds. For the same reason it is immaterial that the Lok Ayukta made the company surrender a certain extent of puramboke which it was found to be in its possession. 67. To recapitulate, the claim of title to the property in dispute by the Water Authority, which is one of the material allegations in the FIR is not based on any document, but on a misunderstanding of certain statutory provisions. Even if the allegation in the FIR that the property in dispute belongs to the Water Authority is accepted as true, the actions of the accused will not attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act since shifting of the sewerage line from one part of its property to another part did not give any pecuniary advantage to the company. In other words, the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 68. In other words, the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 68. The case was registered on assumed facts and false statements which were borrowed from the report prepared by Addl. Director of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau who ordered the quick verification. The facts and circumstances of the case indicate mala-fide intention and ulterior motive on the part of the police officer concerned, which is discernable to a person who reads between the lines. 69. The discussion takes me to the conclusion that the FIR is liable to be quashed. It is true that only accused 1, 3 and 5 have filed Writ Petitions for quashing the FIR. But since the other accused are parties to these petitions, the FIR will be quashed in respect of them also. 70. This Judgment will not be an impediment for the Lok Ayukta to proceed with the case before it or against any person who may be found to have committed any offence in connection with any matter other than the shifting of the sewerage line, or for the government to take steps to ascertain the extent of the land the company is entitled to under its title deeds or to recover the puramboke which may be found in its illegal possession. 71. In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The proceedings in Crime No. 3 of 2017 of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, SIU-1 Police Station are quashed.