Procedural Irregularities By Police Officers During Search, Seizure Of Contraband Is Misconduct But Not Criminal Offence: Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court has quashed an FIR against a police officer accused of illegal search and bribery, holding that procedural irregularity in the matter of seizure of contraband alone, would not constitute an offence, even though it may attract disciplinary proceedings.Justice A Badharudeen, delivered the judgment and ruled that the FIR registered against the petitioner was unwarranted and...
Kerala High Court has quashed an FIR against a police officer accused of illegal search and bribery, holding that procedural irregularity in the matter of seizure of contraband alone, would not constitute an offence, even though it may attract disciplinary proceedings.
Justice A Badharudeen, delivered the judgment and ruled that the FIR registered against the petitioner was unwarranted and legally unsustainable.
The court said,
"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 FIR stemmed from a 2020 incident in which the petitioner, a Principal Sub Inspector of Police and three other officers allegedly conducted a late night search at the home of an NRI, based on a tip off about illegal possession of foreign liquor.
The officers reportedly seized four bottles of foreign liquor valued ₹1.5 lakh each and allegedly demanded a ₹6 lakh bribe to avoid registering a criminal case. It was further alleged that the second accused, who had animosity with the brother of her husband who is the NRI, with intention to defame them and to cause lawful loss to them, asked the petitioner to abuse his position to defame them.
Following a preliminary inquiry by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), the petitioner and his team were accused of multiple offences, under section 7a (public servant obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
They were also booked under IPC Sections 182 (false information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person), 167 (Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury), 219 (public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report contrary to law) and 120 B (punishment for criminal conspiracy).
The High Court noted that, if there are procedural lapses in how the search and seizure was conducted, the absence of proper search list or any irregularities did not automatically give rise to criminal offences. It said,
"Even though it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that Probation Sub Inspector of Police gave 164 statement before the Magistrate on 18.03.2023 supporting the allegation, the same also would suggest that the contraband was produced before the court, as alleged in the FIR. Demand for bribe from Saji Philip through the 2nd accused is also alleged, to attract offence under Section 7 of the PC (Amendment) Act. Thus in order to prove demand of bribe, the complainant's brother's wife is introduced. In this matter, 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. Thus the allegation of demand for bribe is not substantiated, prima facie, to find commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 or 13 of the PC (Amendment) Act".
The court observed that when search was conducted the contraband was found and recovered from the house of the complainant, and so the prosecution's allegation that the petitioner and party searched the house of the complainant with intention to defame them is a baseless allegation.
"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," the court added.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had already faced internal disciplinary proceedings for the procedural lapses and had been penalised.
Furthermore, the Court criticised the delay in investigation and implied that the continued pendency of the case appeared to be obstructing the petitioner's career advancement. Despite the FIR being registered in 2023 for a 2020 incident, there had been no significant progress in gathering evidence, particularly in proving forgery . “..registration of this crime and its aftermath are nothing but denying promotion to the petitioner..”, the court noted.
The Court, thus quashed the FIR and allowed the petition.
Case Title - Ratheesh K G v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Case No - Crl M C 6319/ 2025
Counsel for Petitioner - V Sethunath, Thomas Abraham, Sreeganesh U, Lakshminarayan R, Gautham Krishnan K G
Counsel for Respondent - Rajesh A (Spl PP), Rekha S (Sr. PP)