Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1721 (KER)

Vineesh D. S/o Divakaran v. State of Kerala

2025-06-26

A.BADHARUDEEN

body2025
ORDER : 1. Accused No.4 in Crime No.9/2009 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.299/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) to quash all further proceedings in the said case as against him. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the final report and Annexures I and V documents in particular, produced by the petitioner. 3. Here, the prosecution allegation is that, during the period between 2006-07, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 while holding the posts of Tahasildar, Kunnathunadu, Deputy Tahasildar, Revenue Recovery, Kunnathunadu and Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha, respectively, being public servants, abused their official position, connived and conspired together with accused Nos.4 to 6 and as a result of the said conspiracy, paved the way for accused No.4 to purchase 2.22 acres of land and building in Resurvey Nos.110/20-2 and 110/12 of Rayamangalam Village for a meager amount of Rs.25,01,000/- without taking proper valuation of the property, without following procedural formalities for auction, without bidding the land on behalf of the Government and without safeguarding the interest of the State and thus, caused loss to the State, which resulted in undue pecuniary advantage to the auction purchaser, accused No.4, who is, in fact, a benami of accused Nos.5 and 6. This is the base, on which, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , by accused Nos.1 to 6. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as the 4 th accused is the person who auctioned the property following the procedure and according to the prosecution, the same was for a lesser price. However, as on 05.01.2011, the Commissioner of Land Revenue intervened in the auction, finding some irregularities and he passed Annexure V order bearing No. LR(B7)27473/2010 and set aside the auction sale. 5. However, as on 05.01.2011, the Commissioner of Land Revenue intervened in the auction, finding some irregularities and he passed Annexure V order bearing No. LR(B7)27473/2010 and set aside the auction sale. 5. Going through Annexure V order, it is evident that the Land Revenue Commissioner considered the irregularities in the auction sale in favour of the petitioner herein and ultimately, the Land Revenue Commissioner set aside the auction and reverted the property back to its original owner. The Land Revenue Commissioner further directed realisation of the due amount to the Government after considering the case of Union Bank of India, who also had a charge in the property, afresh by remanding the same. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after remand, no steps, in fact, warranted in the said proceedings because of Annexure I. As per Annexure I, the State Tax Officer, Kerala State Goods & Services Tax Department, Mini Civil Station, Perumbavoor sent a letter to the Deputy Collector (RR), Collectorate, Ernakulam on 19.03.2020. The same reads as under: Kind attention is invited to the above reference. As per the reference 1 st cited above RR proceedings were recommended against Shri.I.J.Kuruvilla, Illiparambil (House), M/s.J.K.Rubbers, Kurumpady, Perumbavoor for the year 1999-00 and 2000-01. Later the assessee has filed their application to settle the arrears relating to the above periods under amnesty scheme. According to this scheme entire interest relating to the above period has been waived. Entire Tax amount relating to the above periods has been collected as per the details are shown below: 1999-20 1. KGST Tax Rs.185714/Ch No.Kl00281231920-M Dt 03-06-2019 2. KGST Tax Rs.912680/-, Surcharge Rs.15886/- Total Rs.928566/-- Ch No.KL01597960702019-20 M dt 10-03-2020. Total amount 1114280/- 2000-01 1. KGST Tax Rs.339427/-Ch No.Kl0028122042019-20M dt 06-06-2019 2. KGST Tax Rs.10,00000/- Ch no.KL01609762201920 M dt 12-03-2020 3. KGST Tax Rs.697133/-Ch no Kl016435382201920 M dt 19-03-2020 Total amount of Rs.20,36560/- - Grand Total 3150840/- In this circumstances, the RRCs recommended against the assessee vide reference cited 1 st above may be treated as withdrawn. 7. On reading Annexures I and V along with the prosecution allegations, the matter emerges is that the petitioner alleged to have auctioned the property for a lesser price than the market price and obtained illegal pecuniary gain to him. According to the prosecution, the same is the result of conspiracy hatched between the accused persons. 7. On reading Annexures I and V along with the prosecution allegations, the matter emerges is that the petitioner alleged to have auctioned the property for a lesser price than the market price and obtained illegal pecuniary gain to him. According to the prosecution, the same is the result of conspiracy hatched between the accused persons. However, as per Annexure V, the irregularities and non involvement of Union Bank of India, a banking institution, having charge over the property, were found and the auction sale in favour of the petitioner herein was set aside. Thereby, the Land Revenue Commissioner reverted back the title to the original owner. Annexure I would show that thereafter, the tax due to the Government was cleared by the owner as per Annexure I. Thus, the petitioner did not obtain any advantage or pecuniary gain, in any manner. 8. In this context, the question arises for consideration is: Whether any pecuniary gain obtained to anybody or any pecuniary loss sustained to the Government or anybody in the present case, to hold that offence under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, 1988, is made out prima facie? 9. In view of Annexures I and V in this case, nobody obtained any gain or sustained loss, as already discussed. When the prosecution records and the subsequent proceedings in the form of reliable materials are available for scrutiny, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023, the High Court should address as to whether any offence made out prima facie warrants trial so as to ensure that the proceedings are mere abuse of process of court. Once it is found that the offences could not be found prima facie, the unnecessary criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed to meet the ends of justice and to arrest abuse of process of court. 10. The above discussion would lead to the conclusion that there is no pecuniary loss or gain to anybody in this case so as to proceed against the petitioner herein alleging commission of the above offences. In view of the same, the prayer to quash the proceedings is liable to succeed. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. 10. The above discussion would lead to the conclusion that there is no pecuniary loss or gain to anybody in this case so as to proceed against the petitioner herein alleging commission of the above offences. In view of the same, the prayer to quash the proceedings is liable to succeed. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings in Crime No.9/2009 of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.299/2016 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, against the petitioner herein, stand quashed.