In Brief
The appellant, a building owner, sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly conspiring with Municipal Corporation officials to construct a commercial building in a prohibited zone. He falsely obtained a renovation permit (which was legally unnecessary under the Rules) as a pretext to demolish and rebuild the structure. Despite a stop memo from the Vigilance Department, he continued construction and later sought regularisation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of his quashing petition, holding that the appellant's actions constituted criminal conspiracy under IPC Section 120B and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court rejected his arguments that regularisation erased criminality and that he deserved parity with the architect (whose separate prosecution was quashed), noting the architect had no involvement in the conspiracy.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.