Telangana HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Senior Advocate Accused Of Taking Bribe To Manage Judges & Get Favourable Judgments
The Telangana High Court refused to quash FIR against one Senior Advocate being accused of taking bribe from clients to manage the High Court Judges and get favourable judgments and orders.
The Court was dealing with a criminal petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking to quash the FIR registered against him.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Lakshman said, “It is important to note that there may be cases where, looking at the allegations in the FIR, a view in relation to its prima 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.”
Senior Advocate V. Pattabhi appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste (SC) and in 1982, his father and other members of his community purchased lands in a district. The entire sale consideration was paid and physical possession was handed over, however, in 2005, third parties started encroaching on the land. As a result, civil suits were filed and revenue proceedings were initiated. The complainant and his community members decided to engage the petitioner as their counsel, given his efficiency, eminence, and popularity. The complainant alleged that the petitioner assured him that he had a good case and they shall win the same and hence, demanded fee of Rs. 30 lakhs was paid to him. After receiving the fee, the petitioner allegedly did not pursue the case of the complainant and there was no progress in the pending cases. Thereafter, the complainant visited his office wherein he assured that they will win the case, however, no steps were still taken by him. He again visited his office and the petitioner stated that he can manage the High Court judges and get a judgment in his favour as in other cases too, he had paid money to the judges and got favourable orders.
The petitioner, therefore, demanded Rs. 10 crores in cash but the complainant and the community members requested to accept Rs. 7 crores and he agreed with the same. Thereafter, the complainant got to know from reliable sources that the petitioner colluded with the opposite side and obtained Rs. 25 crores in cash. Also, despite receiving huge amount of cash, the petitioner failed to appear in the complainant’s case. When the complainant approached him and demanded the money back, he hurled caste-based abuses against him. When the complainant informed the petitioner that he will lodge a complaint against him, he requested for a month’s time to return the amount. Thereafter, he returned Rs. 1 crore but failed to return remaining Rs. 6 crores and when the same was demanded by the complainant, the petitioner threatened to get him and his minor children abducted and killed. It was alleged that the petitioner with the help of an accused MLA was harassing and threatening the complainant with his life. Resultantly, the complaint was filed against him.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.”
The Court also noted that certain claims by the complainant are highly exaggerated and his conduct in participation of 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”, it added.
The Court clarified that the grant of protection from arrest is not in contravention of Sections 18 and 18A of the SC & ST Act, 1989. It, therefore, issued the following directions –
i. As the investigation is pending, FIR No. 26/2024 dt. 25.01.2024 cannot be quashed;
ii. The Petitioner is protected from arrest till filing of final report;
iii. The Petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation as and when required;
iv. Needless to say, if the Petitioner fails to co-operate in the investigation, the authorities are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
v. The Investigating officer shall conduct investigation in the subject crime strictly in accordance with law including on the aspects mentioned supra.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the criminal petition and refused to quash the FIR against the petitioner.
Cause Title- Vedula Venkataramana v. The State of Telangana & Others
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate V. Pattabhi
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao and Advocate Nimma Narayana.