Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Senior Advocate Accused Of Accepting Bribe To Influence Judges
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a senior advocate seeking to quash a FIR lodged against him for allegedly accepting Rs. 7 crores from a litigant with the alleged intent of bribing High Court judges to secure a favorable verdict.“The allegations levelled against the Petitioner are grave. The allegation that money was obtained to bribe the judges of this Court casts...
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a senior advocate seeking to quash a FIR lodged against him for allegedly accepting Rs. 7 crores from a litigant with the alleged intent of bribing High Court judges to secure a favorable verdict.
“The allegations levelled against the Petitioner are grave. The allegation that money was obtained to bribe the judges of this Court casts a serious doubt on the independence of judiciary and implies that justice is up for sale. Such serious allegations need to be investigated,” said Justice K. Lakshman.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the complainant and respondent No.3 in the petition, who alleged that he had engaged the senior advocate (Petitioner) as his counsel in a land dispute case. According to the complainant, the advocate had demanded and received Rs. 7 crores, assuring him that this money would be used to bribe High Court judges and ensure a favorable outcome in his case. The Senior counsel had allegedly reassured the complainant that, on previous occasions, favorable orders were secured this way and also alleged to have named the Judges.
However, the promised judgment never materialized. And when the money was demanded back, the advocate allegedly failed to return the money, resorting to caste-based insults and threats when confronted. The Advocate is alleged to have threatened the complainant of his life with the help of one Ahmed Bin Abdulla Balala, who is an MLA.
The advocate vehemently denied these allegations, contending that they were false, baseless, and motivated by malice. He argued that the complaint was vague, lacked specific dates regarding the alleged payment, and that there was no evidence to support the claims. The advocate further contended that the matter was civil in nature and pertained to an alleged incident dating back to 2005, with the complaint being filed after a significant delay of 19 years.
The High Court meticulously examined the arguments presented by both sides and acknowledged the gravity of the allegations, stating that they raised serious concerns about the independence of the judiciary and warranted a thorough investigation.
In addressing the Petitioner's contention that the complaint was not maintainable as the Respondent had agreed to an illegal act (bribing judges), the court referred to precedents like Yacoob v. Emperor and Nagi Reddy v. State. These cases established that criminal proceedings for cheating can be maintained even if the complainant participated in an illegal agreement. The court emphasized that the Respondent's agreement to pay the money for an illegal purpose did not absolve the advocate of criminal liability.
“Therefore, though Respondent No. 3 agreed to pay Rs. 7,00,00,000/- to the Petitioner for an illegal purpose i.e., to bribe the judges of the High Court, a criminal complaint, at his instance, against the Petitioner is maintainable.”
While declining to quash the FIR, the court considered the advocate's long-standing reputation as a senior member of the bar and the absence of any indication that his custodial interrogation was necessary. Consequently, the court invoked its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to grant the advocate protection from arrest until the final report is filed, subject to the condition that he cooperates fully with the ongoing investigation.
“As stated above, certain claims made by Respondent No. 3 are highly exaggerated. The conduct of Respondent No. 3 in participationof the illegal act alleged against the Petitioner raises suspicions about his bona fides. Further, nothing in the counter-affidavit indicates that Petitioner's custodial interrogations is required. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the Petitioner is a senior advocate with long standing.”
No Arrest Order and Conditions:
The court's decision to grant protection from arrest was based on several factors, including the advocate's standing in the legal community and the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation.
The court clarified that this protection did not contravene Sections 18 and 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which restrict anticipatory bail in such cases. It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727, which allows for protection from arrest in appropriate cases under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court also clarified that, a 'not to arrest' order cannot be passed in a petition filed under section 482 when the remedy to file for an anticipatory bail is available to the accused. However, noting that certain offenses were under the SC/ST Act, which does not provide for an anticipatory bail, the Court directed the Investigating Authorities not the arrest the accused petitioner.
“It is important to note that there may be caseswhere, looking at the allegations in the FIR, a view in relation to itsprima facie veracity cannot be taken. Such cases require investigation. However, merely because investigation is pending, a person cannot be subjected to the threat of arrest. Therefore, a remedy of anticipatory bail was incorporated under Section 438 CrPC. In cases where the remedy under Section 438 CrPC is not available and where the allegations require to be investigated and where custodial interrogation is not required, this Court has the power to protect an accused from arrest under Section 482 CrPC.”
However, the court imposed a clear condition on the advocate, i.e., he must cooperate fully with the investigation. Failure to do so would enable the authorities to take appropriate legal action, including seeking his arrest.
The court also directed the officials to investigate to create a money trail of the alleged exchange that took place between the parties.
Thus, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Vedula Venkataramana v. State of Telangana
Case no: Crlp 1866 OF 2024
Counsel for petitioner: V. Pattabhi (Senior Counsel)
Counsel for respondent: Palle Nageshwar Rao (PP) & Nimma Narayana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (TS) 108