“Regularisation Cannot Erase Criminal Conspiracy in Illegal Constructions” – Supreme Court’s New Benchmark in G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala (2025)

Introduction

In G. Mohandas v. The State of Kerala (2025 INSC 854), the Supreme Court of India confronted a recurring question in urban-development jurisprudence: Does subsequent regularisation or compounding of an illegal structure extinguish the criminal liability of those who erected it in conspiracy with municipal officials?

The appellant, a private building owner, had allegedly colluded with officers of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation to secure a façade of “renovation” permission, then demolished the existing premises and raised a four-storeyed commercial complex in a non-commercial zone. When caught, he attempted to pay compounding charges to legitimise the construction. The High Court refused to quash the prosecution under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the matter reached the Supreme Court via special leave under Article 136.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court (Mehta, J. concurring with Nath, J.) dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR and charge-sheet.
• It reaffirmed that no permission is required under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 for mere internal alterations; obtaining one fraudulently and using it as cover for outright demolition/re-construction evidences a prima facie conspiracy.
• Regularisation / compounding, even if eventually permitted, does not wipe out criminal intent or liability for offences under the IPC (section 120-B) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2)).
• Parity with the architect (whose prosecution was earlier quashed) was rejected; professionals performing limited duties cannot be equated with conspirators who conceived and executed the illegal plan.
• The trial-court’s order directing framing of charges stands; the Supreme Court ordered municipal authorities to proceed against the illegal building itself, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited & Relied Upon

Although the judgment text does not list each precedent verbatim, the Court’s reasoning is clearly rooted in, and consistent with, earlier landmark rulings in two broad clusters:

1. Quashing Jurisdiction (s. 482 CrPC)
   • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – canonical guidelines on when criminal proceedings may be quashed; emphasised sparing use of the power where allegations disclose an offence.
   • Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 683 – reiterated restraint in interdicting legitimate investigations.
   • Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 – compounding or settlement is irrelevant where the offence has a “serious societal impact”. The Court draws an implicit analogy here, treating large-scale illegal construction coupled with corruption as an injury to society.
2. Unauthorised Construction & Regularisation
   • Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Municipal Corpn., (2013) 5 SCC 357 – demolition affirmed; regularisation cannot reward brazen violations.
   • Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, (2004) 8 SCC 733 – monetary penalties are no substitute for adherence to law.
   • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Delhi sealing & demolition series) – underscored environmental and planning discipline over private convenience.

By invoking these principles, the Court situates the present case within a continuing judicial commitment to urban-planning integrity and anti-corruption.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Existence of Conspiracy and Mens Rea
   The Rules dispensed with the need for permission for mere internal changes. Obtaining such permission was therefore inutile unless the true intention was to create a paper-trail to mask future illegality. That stratagem, coupled with continued construction in defiance of a stop-memo, supplied the mental element for charges under s.120-B IPC and s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) PC Act.
2. Regularisation ≠ Exoneration
   Payment of compounding fees is an administrative remedy addressing planning violations; it does not relate back to efface prior criminality, especially when public servants are bribed or act dishonestly. The Court distinguishes between:
   • Civil/municipal liability – cured by compounding; and
   • Criminal liability – surviving because the act was accompanied by deception, conspiracy, and abuse of official position.
3. Disparate Roles – No Parity with Architect
   The architect’s involvement was limited to professional services without proof of conspiratorial intent; hence quashing in his case does not automatically extend to the principal beneficiary of the fraud.
4. Threshold for Quash under s. 482
   The final report disclosed a coherent chain of events supporting each ingredient of the alleged offences; consequently, following Bhajan Lal, it would be premature and contrary to settled law to terminate proceedings.

C. Prospective Impact

• Urban-Planning Enforcement
  The judgment entrenches a “zero-tolerance” approach toward illegal constructions, signalling that post-facto compounding cannot be used as a shield in criminal courts.
• Anti-Corruption Momentum
  Public servants who collude with private actors may now find it harder to escape liability through administrative settlements; vigilance departments are emboldened to prosecute despite pendency of regularisation applications.
• Section 482 Landscape
  High Courts are reminded that where municipal offences intertwine with wider conspiracies, quashing is ordinarily impermissible; expect fewer successful petitions premised solely on “regularisation”.
• Professional Liability Distinction
  By demarcating professional service providers from primary conspirators, the decision provides guidance for architects, engineers, and consultants on potential exposure.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 136 (Special Leave)

The Supreme Court’s discretionary power to hear appeals even where no statutory right of appeal exists.

Section 482 CrPC

Enables High Courts to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure justice; used sparingly.

Section 120-B IPC

Penalises an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act; no overt act is necessary for the offence.

Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act

Criminalises public servants who, by corrupt or illegal means, obtain undue advantage for themselves or others.

Compounding / Regularisation

An administrative mechanism allowing payment of a penalty to legalise minor deviations from building norms; not a defence to criminal charges if obtained through fraud or in prohibited zones.

Conclusion

G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala stands as a robust reaffirmation that administrative regularisation cannot retroactively sanitise a criminal conspiracy involving illegal construction and abuse of public office. By keeping the prosecution alive, the Supreme Court reinforces:

• the demarcation between civil/municipal infractions and criminal wrongdoing,
• the stringent threshold for quashing under section 482, and
• the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the sanctity of urban-planning laws.

The decision will likely serve as a bulwark against attempts to convert administrative “compounding” into a de facto amnesty, thereby strengthening both anti-corruption efforts and rule-of-law governance in the real-estate sector.