{"id":249804,"date":"2021-06-15T13:00:52","date_gmt":"2021-06-15T07:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=249804"},"modified":"2021-06-15T11:44:23","modified_gmt":"2021-06-15T06:14:23","slug":"corruption-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Ker HC | Complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases where the FIR based on the same facts has already been quashed on merit"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kerala High Court: <\/strong>V.G. Arun, J., held that a complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases when the FIR based on the same facts had already been quashed on merits.<\/p>\n

The instant application had challenged the order of the Special Judge dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondents 2 to 9. The petitioner, a former Chief Minister of the State, had raised the allegations that one Avruthi Mall Management Co. Ltd. (the Company) was in possession of one acre of land and a shopping mall was being constructed in that property by respondent 8. The sewerage pumping the main line of the Kerala Water Authority had been laid diagonally through the company\u2019s property while respondent 2 was the Chief Minister and respondents 3 to 5 were high ranking officials in the Government, the sewerage line was shifted to one side of the company\u2019s property, thereby effectuating construction over a larger area. The land over which the sewerage line was drawn was actually Government land, which had vested with the Water Authority under Section 16 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986.<\/p>\n

It was alleged that the Company along with its managing director had reduced the property into their possession by creating false documents. While respondents 2 to 5 had aided respondents 6 to 9 by shifting the sewerage line, in gaining an undue pecuniary advantage. And that the order authorizing shifting of the pipeline was issued by suppressing adverse reports and in violation of the prescribed procedure. Therefore, an FIR was filed for offences punishable under Section 120B Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Prior to the filing of the said FIR, another public-spirited citizen had filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta.<\/p>\n

After elaborate consideration of the allegations, the Bench found the claim of title by the Water Authority over the company\u2019s land to be unsustainable. It was also held that, even if the allegation that the property in dispute belongs to the Water Authority was accepted, the action of the accused would not attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act since the respondent Company had not gained any pecuniary advantage by the shifting of the sewerage line from one part of its property to another. Based on the findings, it was held that the FIR did not disclose commission of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, FIR and further proceedings were quashed.<\/p>\n

According to the petitioner, the allegations in complaint and FIR were different and in any event, the complaint should not have been rejected without conducting preliminary enquiry. The decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v State of U.P.,<\/em> (2014) 2 SCC 1<\/a>, was pressed into service in support of this proposition.<\/p>\n

A comparison of the averments in FIR and complaint revealed that the allegations were substantially the same. The Bench opined that the only difference that the complaint contained more details was immaterial as FIR need not be a compendium of all facts. Therefore, the Bench held that allowing the petitioner\u2019s prayer would result in the registration of a second FIR on the very same set of facts. Reliance was placed by the Court on T.T. Antony v State of Kerala, <\/em>(2001) 6 SCC 181<\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court had considered the validity of second FIR on the same facts:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c…the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. <\/em><\/p>\n

xxxxxx <\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court…the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case.<\/em>\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Going by the principle enunciated above, the Bench held that the Special Judge was fully justified in rejecting the complaint, since a second FIR based on the very same allegations cannot be registered, more so when the first FIR had been quashed on merits. Differentiating the Lalita Kumari case, the Bench stated that the legality or otherwise of registering a second FIR based on the same set of facts had not arisen for consideration therein. On the question of preliminary enquiry, the conclusion in Lalita Kumari<\/em> was as under; <\/em><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/em>As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: <\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Matrimonial disputes\/family disputes <\/em><\/li>\n
  2. Commercial offences <\/em><\/li>\n
  3. Medical negligence cases <\/em><\/li>\n
  4. Corruption cases <\/em><\/li>\n
  5. Cases where there is abnormal delay\/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. <\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.<\/em>\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

    In the light of the above the Bench opined that the decision in Lalitha Kumari<\/em> case could not be understood to be a declaration that even in cases where FIR is already registered, preliminary enquiry is bound to be held on a subsequent complaint, containing the very same allegations, being filed. Accordingly, the instant application was dismissed.[V.S.Achuthanandan v. State of Kerala, CRL.MC NO. 4692 of 2019, decided on 08-06-2021]<\/p>\n

    \n

    Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n

    Appearance before the Court by:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    For The Applicant: Adv. S.Chandrasekharan Nair, Adv. Raju George And Adv. S.Gokul Babu<\/p>\n

    For Vigilance Commission: Adv. K.B.Sony,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Kerala High Court: V.G. Arun, J., held that a complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases when the FIR based on the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[46216,3067,29785],"class_list":["post-249804","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-corruption-cases","tag-FIR","tag-law"],"yoast_head":"\nKer HC | Complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases where the FIR based on the same facts has already been quashed on merit | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Corruption Cases\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ker HC | Complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases where the FIR based on the same facts has already been quashed on merit\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Corruption Cases\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-06-15T07:30:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/KeralaHC-e1521442636157.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/\",\"name\":\"Ker HC | Complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases where the FIR based on the same facts has already been quashed on merit | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-06-15T07:30:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Corruption Cases\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ker HC | Complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases where the FIR based on the same facts has already been quashed on merit\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ker HC | Complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases where the FIR based on the same facts has already been quashed on merit | SCC Times","description":"Corruption Cases","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ker HC | Complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases where the FIR based on the same facts has already been quashed on merit","og_description":"Corruption Cases","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-06-15T07:30:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/KeralaHC-e1521442636157.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/","name":"Ker HC | Complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases where the FIR based on the same facts has already been quashed on merit | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-06-15T07:30:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Corruption Cases","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/15\/corruption-cases\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ker HC | Complaint cannot be entertained in corruption cases where the FIR based on the same facts has already been quashed on merit"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":352235,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/03\/kerala-high-court-fir-on-online-complaint-abroad\/","url_meta":{"origin":249804,"position":0},"title":"Can police refuse an FIR for an unsigned email complaint from abroad? Kerala High Court answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"July 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cSection 173 of the BNSS granted statutory recognition to the concept of Zero FIR, which now deals with the registration of FIRs in cognizable cases. Zero FIR has been introduced with the primary purpose of ensuring that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"FIR on online complaint","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/FIR-on-online-complaint.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/FIR-on-online-complaint.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/FIR-on-online-complaint.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/FIR-on-online-complaint.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254499,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/21\/chh-hc-when-prima-facie-ingredients-of-s-383-ipc-is-not-made-out-then-the-offence-under-s-388-ipc-cannot-be-made-out\/","url_meta":{"origin":249804,"position":1},"title":"Chh HC | When prima facie ingredients of S. 383 IPC is not made out, then the offence under S. 388 IPC cannot be made out","author":"Editor","date":"September 21, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: Narendra Kumar Vyas J. allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The factual matrix of the case is such that the Government of Chhattisgarh enacted the Shakambhari (Nal-Jal) Scheme for benefit of agriculturists by granting subsidy. The major authorities along\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":256180,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/28\/chh-hc-agreement-to-withdraw-criminal-complaint-after-receiving-payment-for-the-same-cannot-be-regarded-as-any-lawful-term-and-is-void\/","url_meta":{"origin":249804,"position":2},"title":"Chh HC | Agreement to withdraw criminal complaint after receiving payment for the same cannot be regarded as any lawful term and is void","author":"Editor","date":"October 28, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that the petitioner and respondent 5 are husband and wife who are unhappy together and want no reconciliation. An FIR has been lodged against the petitioner alleging the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":243951,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/16\/sushant-singh-rajput\/","url_meta":{"origin":249804,"position":3},"title":"Bom HC | Power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases: FIR against late actor Sushant Singh\u2019s Sister not to be quashed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and M.S. Karnik, JJ., found prima facie case against Late actor Sushant Singh Rajput\u2019s sister Priyanka Singh. It may be that the relations between the petitioner and the respondent 2 are strained, but we cannot overlook the serious allegations made in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213487,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/10\/pat-hc-prevention-of-corruption-act-complaint-against-public-servant-requires-prior-sanction-of-the-competent-authority\/","url_meta":{"origin":249804,"position":4},"title":"Pat HC | Prevention of Corruption Act: Complaint against public servant requires prior sanction of the Competent Authority","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 10, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Patna High Court: The Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. quashed criminal proceedings filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against a Panchayat Secretary, on the ground that the same lacked proper sanction of the competent authority. Petitioner moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":222355,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/21\/del-hc-quashing-of-fir-in-henious-and-serious-case-of-rape-denied-even-where-accused-subsequently-married-the-vicitm\/","url_meta":{"origin":249804,"position":5},"title":"Del HC | Quashing of FIR in a heinous and serious case of rape denied even where accused subsequently married the victim","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Brijesh Sethi, J., while stating that, \u201cRape not only causes serious injury to a woman\u2019s body, her honour and dignity and even if such an offence is settled by the offender and victim, this offence being not private in nature but has a serious impact on the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249804","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=249804"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249804\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}