Recently, the Kerala High Court held that the continuation of criminal proceedings without substantive evidence or progress in investigation amounts to harassment and denied the petitioner his due promotion. The Court, while quashing the FIR against a police officer accused of illegal seizure and demand of bribe, ruled that the alleged procedural irregularities may amount to misconduct under service rules but do not constitute a criminal offence. The Court significantly observed that "when an FIR is kept alive without any meaningful investigation for years, it becomes a tool to victimize rather than to prosecute".
The petitioner, a former Principal Sub Inspector at South Police Station, Alappuzha, was accused of conducting a raid along with other officers at the residence of an NRI named Saji Philip. It was alleged that foreign liquor was seized without due process and that the officers later demanded a bribe of ₹6 lakhs to avoid registering a case. A preliminary enquiry followed, leading to registration of an FIR nearly three years after the incident. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the preliminary enquiry report and the FIR.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations were entirely false and politically motivated. It was argued that no case was registered for years and the pending FIR was being used to delay the petitioner’s promotion, while his juniors were promoted. He further contended that the bribe allegation was improbable, as the penalty for unauthorised possession of foreign liquor would have been a nominal fine. Moreover, the mobile number alleged to be involved in the bribe communication did not belong to the second accused, weakening the prosecution's case.
The Court examined the preliminary enquiry report and the investigation status. It noted that although contraband was allegedly seized and produced before the court, there was no seizure mahazar prepared at the spot, and the prosecution alleged that a forged seizure memorandum was later submitted. However, crucial evidence such as CCTV footage and corroborating witness statements failed to substantiate the forgery or bribe demands.
Importantly, the Court held, “If at all there was procedural irregularity in the matter of seizure of contraband alone, that by itself would not constitute any offence, though the same would attract disciplinary proceedings under the relevant Service and Conduct Rules".
The Court also considered that disciplinary action had already been taken against the petitioner and concluded that the criminal prosecution lacked foundation. It observed that despite allegations of serious offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, no real investigation had been conducted even after several years. Referring to the Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra decision, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained where no cognizable offence is disclosed and the FIR becomes a tool for administrative suppression.
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. It held that the criminal proceedings were unwarranted, unsupported by evidence, and appeared to be initiated to stall the petitioner’s professional advancement. The Court reinforced that misuse of the criminal justice system to achieve administrative ends cannot be permitted under law.
Case Title: Ratheesh K.G vs. State of Kerala and Anr.
Case No.: CRL.MC NO. 6319 OF 2025
Coram: Justice A. Badharudeen
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. V. Sethunath, Thomas Abraham, Sreeganesh U., Lakshminarayan.R, Gautham Krishnan K.G.
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Rajesh.A (Special Public Prosecutor), Rekha.S (Senior Public Prosecutor)
Picture Source :
