Kerala HC Quashes FIR Over Contraband Seizure | Says Procedural Lapses By Police Are Misconduct, Not Crime
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen quashed an FIR registered against a police officer accused of misconduct during a search operation, holding that the case lacked substantiation and was vitiated by procedural delay. The Court directed that the FIR registered in Crime No.2/2023 of VACB, Alappuzha, be quashed, concluding that the registration of the crime and prolonged investigation amounted to an unwarranted denial of promotion. The Court held that continuation of the proceedings would be unjustified, observing that the allegations did not disclose the commission of cognizable offences.
The petitioner, a police officer formerly serving as Principal Sub Inspector of Police at South Police Station, Alappuzha, was arrayed as Accused No.1 in Crime No.2/2023/ALP of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Alappuzha. The FIR stemmed from a preliminary enquiry report dated 22.06.2022 in CV 1/2020/ALP. The matter pertained to events alleged to have occurred on 01.05.2020.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner, along with three other police officers, allegedly entered the residence of one Saji Philip, a Non-Resident Indian, based on secret information regarding illegal storage of Foreign Liquor. It was alleged that the petitioner and others entered the premises at approximately 8:00 p.m., broke the lock of a showcase, seized four litres of Foreign Liquor, and later demanded a bribe of Rs.6 lakh for not registering a case.
The preliminary enquiry was initiated following a letter dated 25.05.2020, and a formal order for such enquiry was issued on 24.08.2020. Investigations were conducted between 15.09.2020 and 23.02.2021. As a result, the petitioner and three other officers were suspended. On 22.06.2022, the preliminary enquiry concluded with a report alleging abuse of official position and intent to secure illegal gratification. The report recommended registration of a criminal case.
Subsequently, an FIR was registered on 14.03.2023 against the petitioner under Sections 7(a) or 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and Sections 182, 167, 219, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the police team entered the house without proper authorisation, took away expensive liquor, and demanded a bribe.
The FIR further alleged that Smt. Aleyamma, accused No.2, had animosity with the complainant’s family and facilitated the misconduct through telephonic conversations with the petitioner on 30.04.2020 and 01.05.2020. The seized liquor was allegedly taken in a police jeep and later a forged seizure memorandum was prepared and submitted to the court.
The petitioner contended that the allegations were false and aimed at derailing his career. He submitted that despite registration of the FIR, no effective investigation had been conducted, resulting in the unjust denial of promotion. It was argued that the improbability of demanding Rs.6 lakh as a bribe for non-registration of a minor offence reflected the implausibility of the case. The petitioner also questioned the authenticity of the mobile number alleged to have been used by the second accused, stating that it was not registered in her name.
The prosecution, however, submitted that the investigation revealed that the said number, though not registered in Aleyamma's name, was regularly used by her. The connection had been taken in the name of her cousin without his knowledge.
It was also stated that Probation Sub Inspector Sri N.J. Sunekh, part of the search party, had recorded a statement under Section 164 CrPC supporting the prosecution version. He reportedly admitted that he withheld the truth initially due to threats from the petitioner.
The prosecution alleged that the seized liquor was removed without following procedural safeguards and without preparing a search list on site. Witness statements reportedly supported the presence of Sajan Devassy, the complainant’s relative, at the time of the search.
The investigating officer's report stated that despite the lapse of several years since the alleged incident, no evidence was collected regarding the alleged forgery of the seizure mahazar. The report also noted the absence of CCTV evidence showing the seizure due to the positioning of cameras and the police vehicle.
The petitioner contended that even if procedural irregularities existed in the seizure of contraband, it would not amount to a criminal offence but would only warrant departmental proceedings. He further submitted that such disciplinary proceedings had already concluded with imposition of a minor penalty.
The Court recorded: "In the instant case, when there is allegation that a police officer, who is empowered to search a house on getting an information regarding availability of contraband, if at all searched the same and seized the contraband without preparing seizure mahazar, the same itself is not a criminal offence though same may be a misconduct warranting action under the relevant Service Rules and Conduct Rules respectively."
The Court further stated: "It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the disciplinary proceedings minor penalty was imposed and proceedings were finalised."
Regarding the allegation of bribery, the Court noted: "Demand for bribe to the tune of Rs.6 lakh to avoid registration of a case pursuant to recovery of 4 bottles of Foreign Liquor, after its production before the court indicating registration of crime would go to the root of the allegation."
On the aspect of forgery, the Court observed: "The report of the investigating officer would reveal that even the mobile phone number alleged to be used by Smt. Aleyamma to talk with the petitioner/1st accused also doesn’t belong to her."
Further, the Court stated: "In such a case, it could be held that the entire proceedings is unwarranted and therefore the FIR is liable to be quashed."
Quoting from precedents, the Court remarked: "While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint."
It continued: "Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage and quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule."
However, in the specific context of this case, the Court noted: "When the allegation is scrutinised in a case where the investigation not reached at any stage, even after six years and the allegation would not constitute offences alleged, the registration of FIR to be held as unwarranted."
The Court held: "Accordingly, the Crl.M.C stands allowed and the FIR in Crime No.2/2023 of V.A.C.B, Alappuzha stands quashed."
It also stated: "Registration of this crime and its aftermath are nothing but denying promotion to the petitioner, as apprehended by him, is having force."
The judgment concluded with the directive that the FIR in question had no legal foundation to proceed and must be set aside.
Advocates Representing The Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri. V. Sethunath, Shri. Thomas Abraham (K/1051/2010), Shri. Sreeganesh U., Shri. Lakshminarayan R., Shri. Gautham Krishnan K.G.
For the Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor, VACB Sri Rajesh A., Senior Public Prosecutor, VACB Smt. Rekha S.
Case Title: Ratheesh K.G v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:58501
Case Number: Crl.M.C No.6319 of 2025
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
