Telangana HC Refuses to Quash FIR Against Senior Advocate Accused of Accepting Rs 7 Crore to Bribe Judges

The Telangana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a senior advocate seeking to quash an FIR lodged against him for allegedly accepting Rs 7 crore from a litigant with the alleged intent of bribing High Court judges to secure a favourable verdict.

Justice K Lakshman, presiding over the court, emphasised the severity of the allegations. “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,” he stated.

As per the case, the complainant, identified as respondent no. 3, alleged that he had engaged the senior advocate as his counsel in a land dispute case. The complainant claimed that the advocate demanded and received Rs 7 crore, assuring him that the money would be used to bribe High Court judges for a favourable outcome, and even reassuring the complainant by citing previous occasions where favourable orders were secured in this manner. He allegedly even named the judges involved.

However, when the promised judgment did not materialise, the complainant demanded his money back. The advocate allegedly failed to return the money and resorted to caste-based insults and threats when confronted. Additionally, the advocate is accused of threatening the complainant’s life with the help of an MLA.

The allegations were outrightly denied by the senior counsel, asserting that they were false, baseless, and motivated by malice. He argued that the complaint was vague, lacked specific dates regarding the alleged payment, and had no evidence to support the claims. The advocate further contended that the matter was civil in nature and pertained to an incident from 2005, making the complaint significantly delayed by 19 years.

The court, while deciding on the maintainability of the petition, referenced the judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court in ‘Rama Shankar Shukla v. Rikhab Kumar Jain,’ wherein a lawyer allegedly took money from the complainant to influence an Income Tax officer. The accused argued that since the money was for an illegal purpose, criminal proceedings could not be maintained. The High Court, however, rejected this contention stating: “It is not possible to lay down as a general proposition of law that in each and every case where cheating is based upon a void and illegal agreement, there can be no criminal prosecution for cheating.”

Applying this rationale to the present case, the court emphasised that the criminal complaint against the senior advocate (petitioner) is maintainable even though Respondent No. 3 agreed to pay Rs 7,00,00,000/- to the petitioner for an illegal purpose.

The court further underscored that the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), dealing with the provision of inherent powers of the High Court, must be exercised sparingly. Courts should allow the investigation to proceed and should not treat an FIR as an encyclopedia that must disclose all details upfront. The correctness of allegations is to be considered at the appropriate stage, typically not during the investigation.

“The allegation regarding the payment of Rs.7,00,00,000/- by Respondent No. 3 seems exaggerated and its plausibility is doubtful. While it is true that Respondent No. 3 gave no information about how he obtained Rs. 7,00,00,000/- and when it was paid to the Petitioner, the allegations still are worthy of investigation,” the court noted.

“At the stage of investigation, the proceedings cannot be scuttled and the authorities have to be given an opportunity to unearth the truth,” the court said, finding it appropriate to stop the investigation using its power under Section 482 CrPC. However, it deemed it fit to grant protection from arrest to the petitioner.

The court highlighted the judgments of ‘Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.’ and ‘Hema Mishra v. State of U.P.,’ wherein the Court held that “where the remedy of Section 438 CrPC (anticipatory bail) is not available and the arrest of the accused is not necessary, the High Courts can protect the accused from arrest exercising their power either under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226.”

The court disposed of the petition with the following directions :

1. The court decided that the FIR could not be quashed while the investigation was still pending.
2. The petitioner was protected from arrest until the final report was filed.
3. The petitioner was required to cooperate with the investigation whenever needed.
4. If the petitioner fails to cooperate, the authorities are at liberty to take appropriate legal steps in accordance with law.
5. The investigating officer has to conduct the investigation strictly according to the law, including addressing the aspects mentioned in the court’s discussion.