ORDER : 1. The petitioner is accused No.7 in C.C. No.4 of 2022 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The offences alleged in the final report are punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. The petitioner seeks to quash the further proceedings against him in C.C. No.4 of 2022. He contends that there is no material to connect him with any of the said offences. 3. A report dated 29.03.2025 and a statement dated 05.05.2025 of the investigating officer were placed on record. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). 5. The offences were allegedly committed in relation to re-allotment of three plots of land in the industrial area of the SIDCO at Kallettumkara. The plots were originally allotted to accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the year 1996. In terms of the conditions in the order of allotment, the plots were ordered to be resumed in the year 2009. It is alleged that a criminal conspiracy was hatched among accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 and in furtherance of that conspiracy the order of resumption was kept under carpet till 2015. Accused Nos.3 to 5 submitted requests for reallotment of respective plots to them. As per the proceedings No.IE(2)/KLRA/19834/96 dated 13.04.2016 of accused No.2, the lands were reallotted to accused Nos.3, 4 and 5. It is alleged that without refixing the land value, the lands were reallocated and thereby the State sustained a loss of Rs. 2,66,09,591/-. The further allegations are that a conspiracy between accused Nos.2, 6 to 9 and the other accused was hatched. In consequence of that conspiracy, the land was reallotted to accused Nos.3 to 5. The said acts are said to have constituted the aforementioned offences. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that besides the oral statements of witness Nos.7 and 9 and document No.51, the prosecution did not produce anything to establish the guilt of the petitioner and from the said materials no role of the petitioner in committing the offences in question can be gathered or even inferred. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that besides the oral statements of witness Nos.7 and 9 and document No.51, the prosecution did not produce anything to establish the guilt of the petitioner and from the said materials no role of the petitioner in committing the offences in question can be gathered or even inferred. It is pointed out that he was included in a committee constituted as per Annexure A7 dated 13.04.2016, and as it was inferrably constituted for working out the modalities for reallotment of the plots, the petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal intent. The petitioner was not a signatory to the report of the committee. After reallotment only the committee was constituted. The petitioner, for the sole reason of being a member of the committee constituted as per Annexure A7 alone he was implicated. It is further urged that even if there occurred any loss to the Government on account of such a reallotment, the recommendation of the committee, which was after the decision for reallotment cannot be a reason to prosecute the petitioner. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor handed over copies of the statements of witnesses cited by the prosecution for my perusal. It is submitted that when the petitioner was a party to the committee constituted for deciding the question of reallotment he cannot contend that he did not have any part in the process of reallotment, and when loss occasioned to the Government on account of the reallotment, he also becomes a privy to the alleged offences. It is also urged by the learned Prosecutor that after considering the materials collected by the prosecution, sanction was accorded to prosecute the petitioner and in that view also his plea for quashing the final report as against him is not liable to be declined. 8. What is alleged in the final report is that the petitioner was a party to the conspiracy which resulted in the reallotment of the plots in question to accused Nos.3 to 5. The final report would show that the reallotment was as per the proceedings No.IE(2)/KLRA/19834/96 dated 13.04.2016. Annexure A7 is also dated 13.04.2016. If so, the very constitution of the committee to which the petitioner was also a member was subsequent to the reallotment. The final report would show that the reallotment was as per the proceedings No.IE(2)/KLRA/19834/96 dated 13.04.2016. Annexure A7 is also dated 13.04.2016. If so, the very constitution of the committee to which the petitioner was also a member was subsequent to the reallotment. From Annexure A7, it is not possible to understand for what purpose such a committee was constituted; for, the allotment committee had already decided to reallot the plots. 9. From the statement of witness No.9, it is seen that possession of the land was not handed over to accused Nos.3 to 5 even after the order for reallotment of land dated 13.04.2016. Of course, retention of the plots by accused Nos.3 to 5 after 2009, the Government would have suffered a loss. But the materials are insufficient to show that the decision of the committee to which the petitioner was a party resulted in the reallotment of the plots to accused Nos.3 to 5. From the statement of witness No.7, it is clear that while the members of the committee visited the plots, the petitioner was also present. But as can be seen from Annexure A2, the petitioner was not a signatory to the report. If so, nothing to indicate that the petitioner was privy to the conspiracy that resulted in reallotment of the plots without realising enhanced land value can be gathered. Therefore, materials are totally insufficient to implicate the petitioner to the offence of conspiracy, which alone has been attributed against the petitioner. If so, his trial for the alleged offences, on the basis of the materials now placed on record by the prosecution, will only be a travesty of justice inasmuch as there is absolutely no possibility for substantiating the charge levelled against the petitioner. 10. The Apex Court, in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, after considering the earlier precedents, laid down principles which the High Court must consider while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) for quashing a proceedings. It will be advantageous to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in that case: "102. (1) SCC 335, after considering the earlier precedents, laid down principles which the High Court must consider while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) for quashing a proceedings. It will be advantageous to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in that case: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art.226 or the inherent powers under S.482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code. (3) 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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) 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." The Apex court reiterated the aforementioned propositions in a slew of judgements and recently in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 KLT OnLine 3042. 11. Thus, the law is trite that where the allegations made in the final report, 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, that is a case in which this court is obliged to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Final report as against the petitioner-accused No.7 and further proceedings in C.C. No.4 of 2022 before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur as against him are quashed.