Kerala High Court
M.Kumari vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1043 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2025 IN
C.M.Appl.No.149/2024 in CC NO.3 OF 2020 OF ENQUIRY
COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/5th ACCUSED:
M.KUMARI, AGED 59 YEARS,
WIFE OF THANKAEAN, SHEEBA COTTAGE, MANKOOTTAM NEMOM
P.O, PALLICHAL THIRUVANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695020.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY
SMT.NASEEMA BEEVI.A.V.
SHRI.DINOOP P.D.
SMT.RICHU HANNA RANJITH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION UNIT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THROUGH
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -
695001.
SRI A.RAJESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR VACB,
SMT.REKHA.S, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR VACB
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.10.2025, THE COURT ON 27.10.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:80245
Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 2
"C.R"
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.R.P No.1043 of 2025-A1
================================
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (`BNSS' for short) challenging order in C.Mappl.No.149/2024 in C.C.No.3/2020 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, at the instance of the 5th accused, challenging the order refusing discharge sought for under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/5 th accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (`VACB' for short).
3. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, the 6 th accused was the owner of a building by name 'Samrat Hotel' with door No.TC 28/1830 in survey No.709 of Vanchiyoor Village. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 3 were the officials of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. Accused No.7 was the Architect engaged by the 6th accused. 'Samrat Hotel' at Thakaraparambu was a two storied building, within Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. This locality was proposed to be included in the heritage zone in the Fort area. Construction of new commercial buildings were not permitted in the heritage zone. Accused Nos.1 to 5 having fully aware of this fact, entered into a conspiracy with the 6 th accused, pursuant to which the 6th accused made an application for granting permit for making internal renovations to his building. Permit was not required for this work in view of Rule 10 (ix) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Officials of Corporation granted a permit an Appendix-C under Rule 11 (3) permitting the internal renovation. The 6th accused, on the pretext of internal renovation, demolished the entire building and constructed a four storied building in violation of the Rules. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as 'P.C. Act, 1988' for short] and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, by the accused.
2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 4
4. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as far as the revision petitioner, who got arrayed as the 5 th accused, is concerned, she has no role in this occurrence and the prosecution allegation is confined to the period between 15.03.2006 to 27.11.2006. According to him, the 5th accused joined as Building Inspector in the Corporation on 19.07.2006 and continued there till 23.12.2006. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that even though the prosecution has a case that as on 13.09.2006 a telephonic complaint was received by the Town Planning Department of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation about the illegal construction of building near the bar hotel at Thakaraparambu and CW41 Smt.Kamalamma and Superintendent registered a complaint in the petition squad register No.129, marked as Ext.W in the split charge sheet), the revision petitioner had no knowledge regarding the complaint. According to her, she came across such a complaint only on 25.11.2006 and on noticing the complaint and finding that the illegal construction was going on, she initiated proceedings to issue a stop memo and thereafter CW5 issued the stop memo. According to the learned counsel for the revision 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 5 petitioner, so far as the revision petitioner/5th accused is concerned, she has not committed any offence and was never a member of the alleged conspiracy, even if it is assumed that the conspiracy continued beyond 15.03.2006. According to the learned counsel for the 5 th accused, the learned Special Judge in para.47 referred para.15 of the order of this Court, which has resulted in filing of SLP No.1694/2024, whereby the 6 th accused Mr.Mohandas, who owned the property, when challenged refusal of the quashment sought for by him, the Apex Court dismissed the same being devoid of merit. In the said judgment, in paragraphs 16 and 17, the Apex Court held as under:
"16. The trial Court has already rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 239 of the CrPC and has directed framing of charges against him and the officials of the Corporation who were charge-sheeted along with the appellant with the aid of Section 120B of the IPC. These officials have not challenged the criminal proceedings, which is a tacit acknowledgment of the seriousness and, prima facie, validity of the allegations. Needless to say, that the case of the architect, whose prosecution was quashed by the High Court, stands on an entirely different footing. He was merely discharging his professional obligations while preparing the architectural design for the building, without any active involvement in the alleged conspiracy or the execution of the illegal construction. There is no material on record to suggest his prior knowledge or 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 6 participation in the criminal intent shared by the appellant and the Corporation officials. Hence, the appellant cannot claim parity with the architect, i.e., accused No. 7 in the charge sheet, and any reliance placed on the High Court order quashing proceedings against the architect is wholly misplaced.
17. We direct that the concerned authorities shall be under an obligation to take suitable action against the illegal construction raised by the appellant, uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances."
5. It is noticeable that, apart from the order, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/5 th accused, the order of this Court subsequently passed in Crl.R.P.No.806/2025 wherein this Court addressed the challenge against dismissal of the discharge petition filed by the 6th accused after the Supreme Court verdict to hold that, accused Nos.1 to 5 were fully aware of the restriction zone in the area and thereafter as part of conspiracy hatched between accused Nos.1 to 5 on the premise of renovation of the building, completed construction of a four storied building in violation of the zone restrictions.
6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Special Court went wrong in disallowing the prayer for discharge at the instance of this revision petitioner, who is arrayed as the 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 7 5th accused in C.C.No.3/2020, where the prosecution records do not justify her involvement.
7. Disspelling this argument, the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on an earlier finding of this Court, as extracted by the Special Court and pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and also relied on the report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Unit-1, Vigilance & Anti-corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram dated 16.08.2025. Paragraphs 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 22 of the above report are relevant and the same are extracted hereunder:
"8. After conducting the detailed investigation, a Final Report was submitted before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, against the accused persons. Based on the availability of prosecution sanction, split charge sheets were submitted before the Hon'ble Court. The first final report was submitted on 23.01.2020 against Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 (the Petitioner), 6, and 7. A supplementary final report was submitted on 04.02.2022 against Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The first final report was taken on file as C.C. No. 03/2020 and the supplementary final report was assigned with CC 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 8 No. 03/2022. Subsequently the Special Court has clubbed both the cases with the leading case as CC 03/2020.
12. It is submitted that the averments raised in the revision petition are not true to facts and hence denied. It is submitted that, as per the squad report dated 27.11.2006 (found on page 1 of correspondence file TP7/61888/06), it is revealed that an unauthorized building construction was carried out adjacent to 'Hotel Samrat' at Thakaraparambu in the Sreekanteswaram Ward. From the statement of Smt. Shanuja (W3), who was in charge of the TP7 Section in the Town Planning Department during that period, it is evident that the TP7 Section handled building permits, assessments, and related matters for the wards of Kunnukuzhy, Sreekanteswaram, Fort, Manacaud, Sreevaraham, Puthentheruvu, and Vallakkadavu.
13. It is submitted that Smt. M. Kumari (the Petitioner-A5) was appointed to duty in the B.I.T.P. Circle-7 with effect from the forenoon of 19.07.2006, as per Order No. 2 in the proceedings dated 22.07.2006 of the Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation. From the above facts, it is clearly established that the unauthorized construction occurred within the Sreekanteswaram Ward, and the Building Inspector responsible for that ward was the Petitioner, who was in charge of the TP-7 Section covering 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 9 the Sreekanteswaram Ward.
14. It is submitted that, on 13.09.2006, a telephone complaint was received in the Corporation's Town Planning Department alleging that a bar hotel was being demolished and reconstructed on Thakaraparambu Road. This complaint was recorded by Smt. Kamalamma (W-41), Superintendent, on page 129 of the Petition Squad Register. which contained complaints received between 17.11.2006 and 27.11.2006. According Smt. Kamalamma's statement, such complaints were to be verified and reported by the squad members on duty for the respective days. The concerned Building Inspector was required to compulsorily check the register daily to see whether any complaints of unauthorized construction had been received in their respective areas, and to and was then required to take appropriate action.
15. Smt. Kamalamma added that, according to the Petition Squad Register, the said complaint does not appear to have been inspected by the squad. As per the Squad Duty List for September 2006, the Building Inspector assigned to Counter Squad duty for that month was Smt. M. Kumari (the Petitioner). Smt. Kamalamma further stated that if any officer on squad duty faced inconvenience, a change of duty could only be made with the permission of the Assistant 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 10 Town Planning Officer or the Town Planning Officer. Smt. Kamalamma stated that she does not know why the complaint Planning received on 13.09.2006 regarding the demolition and reconstruction of a bar hotel on Thakaraparambu Road was not inspected by the Building Inspector (BI), Smi Rama, who was on squad duty, nor the concerned B1. Smt. Kumari (the Petitioner), failed to inspect the complaint and take necessary action, who was in office on that day or on the succeeding days. From this statement, it is revealed that the Petitioner, as the concerned Building Inspector in charge of the TP-7 Section, showed wilful omission in the execution of duties and thereby aided A-6, the building owner.
16. It is submitted that Smt. M. Kumari (the Petitioner) was present in office on 13.09.2006, as confirmed by the attendance register of the City Corporation. It is further revealed that on the same day, 13.09.2006, the Petitioner used the Corporation vehicle KL-01-J-1444 for squad duty.The driver on duty, Sri. S. Bhasi (W-6), confirmed in his statement that "the signature seen on page 65 of the log book dated 13.09.2006 belongs to Building Inspector Smt. Kumari." This usage is also confirmed by the Vehicle In-and-Out Register. As per the statement of Sri. Ajith V.P (W-7), Junior Health Inspector in charge of garage supervision, the vehicle log books were maintained by the 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 11 respective drivers. From all the above evidence, it is revealed that the Petitioner was assigned to squad duty on 13.09.2006. By failing to take necessary action against the illegal construction, the Petitioner deliberately omitted to execute her duty to aid the building owner.
17. It is humbly submitted that the responsibilities of Building Inspectors have been clearly defined in the G.O. (MS) 163/80/LA. SWD dated 06.07.1996. Clause VII (b) (1) of the said order explicitly states: "Detect unauthorized constructions within his area of jurisdiction." From this, it is clearly recognized that it is the duty of the Building Inspector to identify and take action against unauthorized constructions within their respective areas. However, the circumstances pointed out that the Petitioner took no action in this regard against the unauthorized construction in question.
19. It is submitted that, from the statement of Sri. Kamaludeen (W-1), it is revealed that he submitted a complaint to the Mayor of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation on 25.11.2006 against the said unauthorized construction. This complaint was forwarded to the Town Planning Officer, a duty which was then being carried out by Assistant Town Planning Officer Sri. Mohanakumaran. As per Sri. Mohanakumaran's direction, on 27.11.2006, another 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 12 Building Inspector,Smt. S. Valsalakumari (W-5), conducted a site inspection and issued a Stop Memo in connection with the illegal building construction.
22. It is humbly submitted that it has been revealed during the -investigation that the Petitioner, who was in charge of the TP-7 Section from 19.07.2006 to 23.12.2006, failed to take any action either before or after receiving the telephone complaint dated 13.09.2006 regarding the unauthorized construction. Furthermore, after receiving the written complaint from Sri. Kamaludeen, another Building Inspector, Smt. S. Valsalakumari, issued a Stop Memo. Only after the issuance of the Stop Memo, specifically on 29.11.2006. did the Petitioner submit a report. From these facts, it is revealed that the Petitioner illegally aided the building owner, Sri. G. Mohandas (A-6)."
8. Supporting the report filed by the Investigating Officer, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, in this case evidence of CW41, Kanakamma, would show that the complaint was received as early as on 13.09.2006. But the 5th accused, who was in charge on the said date and was responsible for taking action against the illegal construction, remained silent. Thereafter, another complaint was filed on 25.11.2006 and received by the squad duty team on 27.11.2006 and thereafter also no 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 13 action was taken by the revision petitioner and it was CW5 ultimately had issued the stop memo after inspecting the site, as part of squad duty. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor further that on 25.11.2006, the revision petitioner was on squad duty but she reluctantly remained silent to permit illegal construction.
9. In fact, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, the discharge plea at the instance of the 6th accused was disallowed by this Court and when the matter was taken up before the Apex Court, the Apex Court also declined for interference with the order passed by this Court as can be seen from paragraphs 16 and 17 extracted herein above.
10. Later the 6th accused filed a discharge petition before the Special Court and on dismissal of the same he had approached this Court and this Court dismissed Crl.R.P.No.806 of 2025 as per order dated 18.08.2025. It is true that the plea of discharge raised in this Revision Petition is independent, as far as the revision petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the Special Court is having jurisdiction to examine whether the prosecution materials substantiate the allegation that the petitioner also 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 14 conspired with accused Nos. 1 to 4 in permitting the illegal construction, which ultimately resulted in the completion of a four-storied building under the guise of renovating an old one. It is well-settled law that while considering a plea for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C, the power of the court is confined to examination of the prosecution records to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or whether there exists at least a strong suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused who seeks discharge, though a mere suspicion would not suffice to meet this requirement.
11. The main contention raised by the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner had not worked during the period when the licence for renovation was applied and issued, and she joined subsequently. The further case of the revision petitioner is that she acted against the illegal construction immediately on getting information and therefore, she did not involve in this conspiracy in any manner. In this regard, statements of CW4 and CW5 are relevant. Statement of CW4 and CW5 would show that no stop memo was issued by the revision petitioner and at this juncture, another officer in the squad team issued the stop 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 15 memo. The prosecution had a specific allegation that the revision petitioner also was part of the conspiracy after she joined for duty on 19.07.2006 and worked till 23.12.2006. The mere omission of the period between 19.07.2006 and 23.12.2006 in the final report does not, by itself, constitute a valid ground to conclude that the petitioner, who joined duty only after the period mentioned in the final report would absolve her from penal consequences, if the prosecution records would show hatching of conspiracy by her also in the matter of illegal construction. In this matter, as could be seen from the statement of CW41 Kanakamma and as per No.129 of petitioner squad register (Ext.W in the split charge sheet), it could be gathered that as early as on 13.09.2006, the complaint received through telephone was recorded and transformed in writing and was available. There is no dispute that as on 13.09.2006 the revision petitioner was the Building Inspector responsible for issuing building permit to complete construction in relation to TP 7 section, where the disputed building, located within the Sreekandeswaram ward, Thakaraparambu, was alleged to be constructed. When the Town Planning Department received a complaint in writing as per Ext.W, a duty was cast upon the revision 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 16 petitioner to go to the site and inspect the site to find out whether the allegation of illegal construction in the complaint was having force. Even though it is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner had no occasion to see the complaint to act upon, the same could not be addressed at the pre-trial stage though this is a matter which can be addressed by the trial court during trial, based on the evidence tendered. Otherwise, the inference is that the revision petitioner remained silent without taking action on Ext.W dated 13.09.2006 and by the time the building construction was almost completed. Statement of CW5 would show that she had issued stop memo at the time of the plastering work. So, if timely action was taken by the revision petitioner, who is responsible to arrest illegal construction as on 13.09.2006, the construction could have been stopped before it reached the final stage. In fact, as discernible from the records, CW1 filed complaint dated 25.11.2006 since there was no action on Ext.W complaint dated 13.09.2006 and the same was forwarded to the Town Planning Officer. Accordingly, CW4 Mohan Kumar, Assistant Town Planning Officer, who was in charge, instructed CW5 Valsala Kumari to inspect the site and she 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 17 had visited the site and had issued Ext.B1 stop memo. Statement of CW4 would show, these facts. Statement of CW5 would show that she had issued stop memo pertaining to this building though the building was situated within the limit of TP7 Section under the control of the revision petitioner. CW5 stated further that in respect of another illegal building construction within the domain of the revision petitioner in TP7 Section, CW5 had issued stop memo on 29.11.2006, since the revision petitioner failed to issue the same.
12. In the instant case, under the guise of renovation of an old building, the 6th accused had constructed a four storied building in a heritage zone where restriction was imposed for constructions. In fact, this aspect was known to all the accused. In this connection, it is relevant to note that a four storied building could not be completed within a short span of time and if timely action was taken as on 13.09.2006 by the revision petitioner, the construction could have been stopped. In such a case, it is too premature to hold that the revision petitioner had no involvement in any conspiracy, as alleged by the prosecution. Thus, prima facie, the involvement of the revision petitioner as part of the conspiracy hatched in 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 18 this crime is well made out, and in view of the same, the discharge plea raised by the revision petitioner could not succeed, as rightly found by the Special Court. Therefore, this petition would deserve dismissal.
13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
14. Interim stay stands vacated with direction to the Special Court to expedite the trial.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court for information and compliance.
Sd/-
(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE) rtr/ 2025:KER:80245 Crl.R.P.No.1043/2025-A1 19 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1043/2025 REVISION PETITIONER's ANNEXURE Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER 20.09.2025 OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CRLM.P. 149 /2024 IN CC NO: 03/2020 IN V.C NO.03/2009/VACB/SIU-
I/TVM).