1. The petitioners herein, who were the Tahsildar, Kuttanad and the Junior Superintendent, Collectorate Alappuzha have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘BNSS’ for short], to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure.A1 FIR No.02/2025/ALP of VACB, Alappuzha dated 07.05.2025. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Also heard the learned counsel appearing for the additional 3rd respondent, who is the informant and complainant in this case. Perused the case diary and relevant materials available.

3. The prosecution case as could be discernible from the FIR is that, the 1st accused who had been working as the Tahsildar, Kuttanad Taluk and the 2nd accused, who had been working as the Junior Superintendent of District Collectorate, Alappuzha, with intention to obtain illegal gratification, for the purpose of issuing certificate showing less valuation to the property for which the complainant’s wife and his mother-in-law applied for purchase certificate abutting their property, demanded illegal gratification. The specific case is that, at about 4.15 p.m. on 06.05.2025, accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.3 Lakh from the complainant for issuing the certificate. Recording the statement of the complainant, the crime was registered. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act, 2018’ for short] and under Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as ‘BNS’ for short]. As submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, on the basis of the statement, pre-trap proceedings completed and when the Vigilance party reached as part of trap, the attempt was failed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the entire allegations in the FIR as to the demand of bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2 are false, in view of the fact that the trap attempt at the instance of the Vigilance was totally failed as FIR was registered without satisfying the truthfulness of the demand. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per Annexure-A1 FIR, the FIR was registered on 10.10 a.m. on 07.05.2025 and the type of information showed in column No.4 is ‘oral’. Despite that, now the prosecution produced Annexure-A38 complaint alleged to be one given by the complainant on 30.04.2025 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is a fabricated document, since, if Annexure-A38 complaint was given in writing, that should have been shown in column No.4 of the FIR. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the wife and mother-in-law of the complainant applied for getting assignment in respect of 4.80 Ares of property of Thalavadi Village in Block No.36 in Resurvey No.558/9, which was abutting their property, given for lease for agricultural purpose. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as on 15.04.2025 for the purpose of considering writ petition for expediting the process of assignment, the 1st petitioner prepared Annexure-A24 report and accordingly he had fixed Rs.9,43,548/- per Are as the value of the property and according to him, this property was assessed based on the the property of 6.20 Ares in Resurvey No.570/7 in Block No.36 of Thalavadi Village and it was reported that, even though the property was assigned for agricultural purpose, now the same has been using for commercial purpose because the same is having road access. Accordingly, it was found that the property would fetch Rs.9,43,548/- per Are, considering its value for commercial purpose at the rate of Rs.7,25,806/-. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, in view of Annexure-A24 report, the complainant was aggrieved and it was thereafter he wanted to include the petitioners in a corruption case on the premise of demanding bribe. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered after filing Annexure-A24 report before this Court in the writ petition filed by the complainant’s wife and mother-in-law, as the report was made known to the complainant, his wife and mother-in-law on 15.04.2025 itself. It is pointed out further that, despite the attempt to trap the petitioners, the same was miserably failed as the entire allegation as to demand of bribe stemmed from false substratum. This is the trump card on which, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, when FIR was registered based on the demand of bribe and when attempt was made to trap the accused to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe was failed, further proceeding based on the said FIR is an abuse of process of the Court and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Zealously opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, in this case, there is evidence to show the demand of bribe by the accused to find commission of offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act, 2018, since mere demand or solicitation for bribe itself is an offence under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act, 2018. In this connection, the learned Public Prosecutor placed decisions of the Apex Court reported in [2025 KHC 6219 : 2025 KHC OnLine 6219 : 2025 INSC 320] Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab, with reference to paragraph No.11 onwards and [2023 KHC 6961 : 2023 KHC OnLine 6961 : 2023 INSC 956] Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, with reference to paragraph No.23.

6. On notice, the additional 3rd respondent/complainant appeared and filed counter affidavit opposing quashment of the proceedings and it has been inter alia contended therein that, on going through the entire contentions advanced by the petitioners, there are no legal and factual basis for aborting an investigation of a case of this nature at the embryo stage itself. The learned counsel appearing for the additional 3rd respondent also shared the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act, 2018. He also submitted that, in Devinder Kumar Bansal’s case (supra), the Apex Court held that, mere demand of bribe would suffice to commit the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 2018. He also submitted that, in a decision rendered by this Court in Sanu P.K. v. State of Kerala reported in [2025 KHC 724 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2270] (Crl.M.C. No.4345/2025), it has been held that, even if there is any minor discrepancies in the manner in which complaint was lodged and FIR registered they were not sufficient grounds for quashing FIR or Charge Sheet and those anomalies could be pointed out during trial by the accused.

7. According to the learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent, even though this Court is empowered under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR as held in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 AIR 604], if there is any iota of truth in the allegation, such course of action could not be opted. He also pointed out that, now the additional 3rd respondent produced his mobile phone before the Investigating Officer and according to him the conversation between the 1st accused and the complainant would recite what had been stated in Annexure-R3C, the true verbatim of the mobile conversation between the complainant and the 1st accused and the same include demand of some amount by the 1st accused, suggestion made by the complainant to arrange Rs.2 Lakh and the 1st accused fixing the same as Rs.3 Lakh.

8. It is discernible from the records that, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Annexure-A24 report showing value of property to the tune of Rs.9,43,548/- was filed before this Court in the then pending writ petition filed by the wife and motherin- law of the complainant, by the 1st accused based on his assessment and the allegation of the complainant is that, accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded bribe of Rs.3 Lakh to show lesser valuation to the property belonging to the wife and mother-in-law of the complainant and as per the FIS and FIR, the said complaint was lodged on 06.05.2025. According to the learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent, Annexure-R3C conversation also is on 06.05.2025. In this connection, it is very pertinent to note that, if there was Annexure-A24 report, that too filed in a writ petition before this Court, then the question of demanding bribe or accepting the same by the accused persons for the said purpose is an improbability.

9. Here comes the significance of Annexures-A28(a), 28(b) and 29. According to the 1st petitioner, he visited the family members of the informant (Chakkulathukavu Temple Trust) along with the 2nd petitioner on one day with others, including the Panchayat President, its members and other institutions, churches and collected money for Champakulam Moolam Boat race conducted by the Government and obtained money and given receipts for the same. The copy of receipt issued to Karyadarsi of Chakkulathukavu Trust, a relative of the informant is Annexure-A28(a) and the receipt issued to one Manikuttan Thirumeni of Chakkulathukavu Temple Trust, a relative of the informant is Annexure-A28(b) and the photos taken infront of general public including Vikars of Church and office bearers of the Chakkulathukavu Temple Trust, while collecting the amount is Annexure- A29. This aspect is not disputed, since the 1st accused/1st petitioner was appointed as the Convener to conduct the Champakulam Moolam Boat race, being the Tahsildar of Kuttanad and he was empowered to collect fund from public in this count. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in this connection, there were telephone calls between the petitioners and the informant whereby donation was discussed.

10. Here, it could be seen that, Smt.Thankamaniyamma and Smt. Maheswari Jaysurya, who are the mother-in-law and the wife of the complainant filed repeated writ petitions periodically before this Court in the matter of assignment of property herein above discussed for a lesser sum, even though the amount assessed by the authority were not paid and the attempt of Smt.Thankamaniyamma and Smt. Maheswari Jaysurya seem to be to get assignment of the property for a lesser sum. The learned counsel for the petitioners produced latest order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7273/2018 filed by Smt.Thankamaniyamma and Smt. Maheswari Jaysurya, which was disposed of on 05.08.2025, wherein also the assignment of the land is the dispute and in the said case also this Court directed consideration of the application filed by Smt. Maheswari Jayasurya as Ext.P10 therein by the 1st respondent therein and pass orders. The case bundle would show that, writ petitions filed as Annexure- A25 viz. W.P.(C) No.29152/2013(T) disposed on 28.11.2016 and W.P.(C) No.34494/2017 (J) disposed on 04.12.2017 etc. also in similar fashion.

11. Insofar as quashment of proceedings pursuant to FIR by invoking power under Section 528 of the BNSS is concerned, the law is well settled. If the allegations are prima facie made out and the same has foundation to sustain, no doubt crime has to be registered and investigated. To put it otherwise, when the facts involved would disclose a cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory as held in [(2014) 2 SCC 1] Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Others. At the same time, even though FIR discloses non-cognizable offence and the same when evaluating the facts along with the documents and other materials produced by the parties challenging the FIR to show that the allegations are false and the prosecution is an abuse of process of the Court, then by exercising power under Section 528 of the BNSS, quashment of the FIR is legally permissible.

12. In the instant case, as I have already discussed, there was written complaint filed by the complainant on 30.04.2025 regarding demand of bribe. But, in the FIR the type of information showed in column No.4 is ‘oral’. Annexure-A2 is the letter issued by Smt.Maheswari Jayasurya, who is the 2nd petitioner in almost all the writ petitions and the wife of the complainant to the Minister of Revenue Department, Thiruvananthapuram dated 16.06.2025. The allegation in the said complaint is that, in connection with assignment of land described herein above, when the husband of Smt. Maheswari Jayasurya (the complainant) approached the Tahsildar (the 1st accused), he demanded Rs.6 Lakh as bribe. When her husband met the Junior Superintendent, Collectorate Alappuzha (the 2nd accused) also demanded bribe along with the Tahsildar. It has been stated further that, both the accused reached the property, where an auditorium has been functioning and repeatedly asked bribe and Rs.40,000/- was accepted by Sudhi (the 1st accused). In the said letter, assessment of land for a value of Rs.9,43,548/- in Annexure-A24 also was referred alleging that it was so done to harm her.

13. Thus, it appears that, as per the case of the complainant, the bribe money demanded was Rs.3 Lakh that too on 4.15 p.m. on 06.05.2025 and as per the complaint made by the wife of the complainant dated 16.06.2025, the demand of bribe was Rs.6 Lakh. It is true that, the wife of the complainant and his mother in law are in necessity to get 4.80 Ares of property described hereinabove assigned in their favour for a very lesser amount and according to the petitioners/accused, the same has been used as part of an auditorium for commercial purpose. Accordingly, as per Annexure-A24 report, Rs.9,43,548/- was assessed as early on 15.04.2025 and the report was produced before this Court in a writ petition filed at the instance of the wife and mother in law of the complainant and made known to them.

14. It is very interesting to note that, thereafter FIR was registered on 07.05.2025 and steps to trap the petitioners/accused also taken, but the trap has not been succeeded. The important aspect in the instant case is that, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a report before the Court stating that Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act would not lie and when this Court interfered, the Investigating Officer was transferred and again the offence under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act got incorporated. Now the question to be decided is, in the facts of the case, whether offence under Section 7(a) of the P.C. Act, 2018 would attract? Then the next question is, whether the FIS given by the complainant which led to registration of the present FIR is believable, in the context of the facts discussed?

15. As already observed, the wife and mother-in-law of the complainant had approached this Court on various occasions starting from 2013 onwards and their aim is to get 4.80 Ares of property for a very lesser amount, though the records would show that the land has been not using for agricultural purpose and there is an auditorium and the land sought to be assigned has been using as parking space therein. Anyhow, this Court is not inclined to decide as to whether the property is to be assessed as commercial land or not. But, Annexure-A24 would show that the 1st petitioner have assessed the property for Rs.9,43,548/- and the same is a reasonable amount, even though the same is mightier according to the wife and mother-in-law of the complainant. Those aspects would be decided in appropriate proceedings, as per law.

16. However, the facts remain is that, when Annexure- A24 would suggest fixation of land value at the rate of Rs.9,43,548/-, the subsequent events demanding bribe for the purpose of reducing the amount, which could not possible at the helm of accused Nos.1 and 2, makes the demand of bribe at the instance of petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, alleged in this case as an impossibility. This aspect is fortified by the contra versions given by the informant and his wife regarding the amount demanded as bribe and according to the informant the bribe demanded was Rs.3 lakh and according to his wife, the bribe demanded was Rs.6 lakh. Further, the trap attempt was also miserably failed and that would also show that the allegation of the complainant as to demand of bribe could not be proved by acceptance of the same. In view of the discussion, I am of the view that the entire prosecution in a failed trap case, in the facts discussed herein above, is unwarranted. Therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed, in the interest of justice.

                  Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to Annexure.A1 FIR No.02/2025/ALP of VACB, Alappuzha dated 07.05.2025, stand quashed, as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2.