Telangana High Court: The present criminal petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking to quash FIR registered by P.S. Central Crime Station against petitioner allegedly taking bribe to influence judges. K. Lakshman, J., directed that as the investigation was pending, FIR could not be quashed but opined that petitioner was protected from arrest till filing of the final report.
Background
Respondent 3, the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste and in 1982, his father and other members of his community purchased lands and the entire sale consideration was paid, and physical possession was handed over. But in 2005, third parties started encroaching on it. Therefore, civil suits were filed, and revenue proceedings were initiated in relation to the lands owned by Respondent 3 and his community members. Thereafter, petitioner was engaged as their counsel and accordingly, the relevant documents were handed over to him. Respondent 3 alleged that petitioner assured him that he had a good case, and they would win the case and thus, a fee of Rs 30 lakh was demanded by him, which was duly paid. But after receiving the fee, petitioner did not pursue the case and there was no progress in the pending cases.
Respondents claimed that petitioner stated that he could manage the High Court judges and get a judgment in Respondent 3’s favour and in other cases too, he had paid money to the judges and got favourable orders. Thereafter, Respondent 3 paid Rs 7 crore in cash to petitioner but later, Respondent 3 got to know that petitioner colluded with opposite side and obtained Rs 25 crore in cash and after receiving the said amount, he failed to appear on Respondent 3’s behalf. Thus, it was alleged in the complaint that, despite receiving Rs 7 crore, petitioner failed to appear in the case, and he cheated Respondent 3 by inducing him to pay Rs 7 crore by representing that the said amount would be paid to the judges of the High Court.
Respondent 3 and his community members demanded the money back from petitioner, however, instead of returning the money, petitioner hurled caste-based abuses against Respondent 3. Respondent 3 informed petitioner that he would lodge a complaint, thus, petitioner returned Rs 1 crore but failed to return the remaining amount. When the remaining amount was demanded, petitioner threatened to get Respondent 3 and his minor children abducted and killed. Further, petitioner with the help of Accused 2, an MLA of the Malakpet constituency, was harassing and threatening Respondent 3 with his life.
Thus, based on the said complaints, a case was registered under Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3(2)(v-a) and 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC & SC Act’).
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that as per the complaint, when petitioner made the alleged representation to bribe the judges, Respondent 3 agreed and paid Rs 7 crore. Thus, the Court stated that this raised a question that “whether a complainant who was a party to an illegal agreement could maintain an action under the criminal law for non-performance of such an agreement and allege cheating?”.
The Court relied on Yacoob v. Emperor, 1933 SCC OnLine Rang 156, wherein it was held that the criminal proceedings were maintainable, even if the complainant was party to an illegal agreement. The Court also relied on Nagi Reddy v. State, 1972 SCC OnLine AP 25, wherein it was held that criminal proceedings alleging cheating were maintainable, even if the amount was paid for an illegal purpose. Thus, the Court opined that though Respondent 3 agreed to pay Rs 7 crore to petitioner for an illegal purpose i.e., to bribe the judges of the High Court, a criminal complaint, against petitioner was still maintainable.
The Court further relied on Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 and observed that the power under Section 482 of CrPC had to be exercised sparingly and at the stage of investigation, the proceedings could not be scuttled, and the authorities must be given an opportunity to unearth the truth.
The Court opined that the allegation regarding the payment of Rs 7 crore by Respondent 3 seemed exaggerated and its plausibility was doubtful, though it was true that he gave no information about how he obtained that amount and when it was paid to petitioner, the allegations still were worthy of investigation.
The Court stated that Respondent 3’s conduct in participation of the illegal act alleged against petitioner raised suspicions about him being bona fide and nothing in the counter-affidavit indicated that petitioner’s custodial interrogation was required. Further, the Court noted that petitioner was a Senior Advocate with long standing.
The Court noted that in the present case, along with the offences under IPC, offences under SC & ST Act were alleged against petitioner and it further clarified that the grant of protection from arrest was not in contravention of Sections 18 and 18-A of SC & ST Act. The Court relied on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, wherein the Supreme Court while upholding the vires of Section 18-A held that protection from arrest under SC & ST Act could be granted in appropriate cases while exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC.
This Court vide order dated 07-03-2024 had directed the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation on the aspects of, (a) pendency of cases in different courts including this Court where Respondent 3 was a party; (b) appearance of petitioner on behalf of Respondent 3 in the said cases including filing of vakalath, written statement, plaint, petitions, counters etc; (c) paying capacity of Respondent 3; (d) borrowing of huge amount of 7 crore from the friends of Respondent 3 as contended by him; and (e) proceedings issued by Government of India to the effect that any transaction over and above Rs 2 lakh should not be in cash, and it should be only online or cheque.
The Court disposed of the present criminal petition with the following directions:
-
As the investigation was pending, FIR could not be quashed;
-
Petitioner was protected from arrest till filing of the final report;
-
Petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation as and when required; and if petitioner failed to co-operate in the investigation, the authorities were at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law;
-
Investigating officer shall conduct investigation strictly in accordance with the law.
[X v. State of Telangana, Criminal Petition No. 1866 of 204, decided on 24-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: V. Pattabhi, Senior Counsel
For the Respondents: Palle Nageshwar Rao, Public Prosecutor; Nimma Narayana, Counsel
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Must Watch
