Dormant Investigations & Prima-Facie Deficiency: Kerala High Court’s New Bench-Mark on Quashing FIRs under § 528 BNSS, 2023

1. Introduction

The Kerala High Court in Ratheesh K.G. v. State of Kerala (2025 KER 58501) confronted the intersection between criminal prosecution and departmental misconduct. The petitioner, a serving Sub-Inspector, sought to quash (i) the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau’s preliminary enquiry report and (ii) the consequent FIR charging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (“PC Act”) and the Indian Penal Code. Key allegations revolved around an allegedly illegal search, misappropriation of four bottles of foreign liquor, and a demand of ₹6 lakh bribe, events said to have occurred in May 2020 but investigated only years later. Invoking the newly-enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), § 528 (successor to CrPC § 482), the petitioner contended that:

The facts, taken at their highest, revealed only procedural irregularities—matters for departmental action, not criminal prosecution.
Investigation had lain dormant for over three years, effectively stalling the petitioner’s promotion.
Alleged telephone records and eye-witnesses did not withstand elementary scrutiny.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 2/2023 of VACB, Alappuzha, together with the preliminary enquiry report. The Court held:

Irregular seizure or defective mahazar preparation, by itself, does not constitute a criminal offence; it may invite disciplinary action.
Alleged demand for bribe was speculative; core material (CDRs, CCTV, or corroborative statements) were missing even after prolonged enquiry.
A six-year delay in collecting basic evidence signified investigative mala fides, particularly where the pendency prejudiced service prospects.
Consequently, continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process, warranting intervention under § 528 BNSS.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 – Reiterated that quashing FIRs should be rare; yet it recognised that intervention is justified where allegations do not disclose any cognisable offence. The Court used Neeharika as a yardstick but distinguished the present facts: prolonged inertia + absence of foundational material elevated the matter into the “rarest of rare” domain.
Vignesh Kumar Balasundar v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC 442 – Emphasised mandatory registration of FIR where offence is prima facie disclosed. The judgment juxtaposed this principle to show that the reverse also holds: where prima-facie case fails, registration was itself unwarranted.

3.2 Legal Reasoning Adopted

The Court’s reasoning can be parsed into four concentric layers:

Prima-Facie Test: The alleged acts, even if accepted as true, constituted procedural lapses (failure to prepare mahazar on the spot) but did not match elements of PC Act §§ 7/7A (illegal gratification) or IPC §§ 167, 182, 219, 120-B (fabricating records, conspiracy). The Court underscored that producing the liquor before the Magistrate contradicted the theory of misappropriation or concealment.
Evidentiary Vacuum: • No CCTV footage; • The CDR indicated the phone number was not registered in the alleged caller’s name; • The main eye-witness (SI on probation) recorded a § 164 CrPC statement only in 2023—three years post-incident—raising credibility issues. Therefore, the foundation itself was “sand running through fingers.”
Doctrine of Abuse of Process & Delay: Investigations that remain dormant without just cause, particularly where they impede career progression, amount to harassment. The Court moulded this principle into a new benchmark: “Prolonged investigative dormancy, coupled with prima-facie deficiency of material, justifies quashing under § 528 BNSS.”
Disciplinary vs. Criminal Divide: Having noted that departmental proceedings had already resulted in a minor penalty, the Court cautioned against parallel criminal prosecution on identical facts—citing the principle of proportionality and finality.

3.3 Projected Impact

Operationalising BNSS § 528: This is among the first Kerala High Court rulings showcasing the continuity of inherent powers under the BNSS (post-2023 criminal-procedure overhaul).
Guidance to Vigilance Agencies: The decision draws a clear demarcation: vigilance must unearth tangible evidence of quid-pro-quo or corrupt intent; otherwise, the matter should rest within service-law confines.
Career Protection for Public Servants: Courts may now entertain petitions where lingering investigations appear tactically used to block promotions, provided material deficiency is demonstrable.
Template for Other High Courts: The reasoning, anchored in both precedent and the new code, could influence a pan-India approach to similar petitions under § 528 BNSS.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

BNSS, 2023 – § 528: The successor to the “inherent powers” provision of CrPC § 482. It empowers High Courts to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice by quashing proceedings.
PC Act §§ 7 & 7A (Post-2018 Amendment): Criminalises public servants who demand or obtain undue advantage. Requires proof of demand plus acceptance.
§ 164 CrPC Statement: A voluntary statement recorded by a Magistrate, often considered more reliable than police statements because of judicial oversight.
Mahazar (Search/Seizure Memo): A contemporaneously prepared document listing articles seized during a search; defects may attract departmental censure but not automatically criminal charges.
“Rarest of Rare” for Quashing: Borrowed metaphorically (distinct from death-penalty jurisprudence). Indicates that quashing FIRs should be exceptional, but courts will act if continuing proceedings would be manifestly unjust.

5. Conclusion

Ratheesh K.G. v. State of Kerala heralds a pragmatic shift in the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under the BNSS. It crystallises a two-pronged test for quashing: (i) prima-facie absence of statutory ingredients and (ii) prolonged, unexplained investigative dormancy causing prejudice. By emphasising the boundary between disciplinary defaults and criminal culpability, the Court fortifies both investigative integrity and career security for public servants. Future vigilance prosecutions will have to clear a higher evidentiary bar at inception, ensuring that anti-corruption machinery targets genuine graft rather than becomes a tool for administrative vendetta.