A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih issued notice following Venkataraman’s appeal against the Telangana High Court’s refusal to quash the case. Venkataraman contended that the FIR registered against him lacks prima facie evidence and contains vague, unsubstantiated allegations.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday (2nd Dec) directed the Telangana government to respond to a petition filed by Senior Advocate Vedula Venkataraman, who challenges criminal charges alleging that he took Rs 7 crores from clients under the pretense of bribing High Court judges for favorable rulings.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih issued notice following Venkataraman’s appeal against the Telangana High Court’s refusal to quash the case. Venkataraman contended that the FIR registered against him lacks prima facie evidence and contains vague, unsubstantiated allegations.
According to the complaint, Venkataraman allegedly accepted Rs 7 crores from a client, promising to use the funds to bribe High Court judges. However, he did not appear in the case, and upon the client’s request for a refund, he allegedly refused and made caste-based threats against the complainant’s family.
The FIR was filed under IPC Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing property delivery), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation), along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Venkataraman had previously sought to quash the FIR in the Telangana High Court. The High Court dismissed his plea, citing the gravity of the allegations, which implicate judicial integrity.
Justice K Lakshman remarked: “The allegation that money was obtained to bribe judges casts a serious shadow over judicial independence, implying that justice can be bought. These claims require thorough investigation.”
However, the High Court granted Venkataraman protection from arrest, noting that some allegations by the complainant appeared exaggerated. The judge also questioned the complainant’s credibility, given his alleged participation in the act.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, Venkataraman approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the refusal to quash the FIR violates legal principles established in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP. He emphasized the absence of preliminary inquiry or evidence of bribery and pointed out that no chargesheet has been filed.
Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy, along with advocates Mandeep Kalra and Anushna Satapathy, represented Venkataraman before the Supreme Court.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by Mr. Nimma Narayana, the third respondent in the case, on December 16, 2023. Mr. Narayana alleged that in 2005, he and other members of his community, who belong to a Scheduled Caste, engaged Mr. Venkataramana to represent them in land dispute cases in Bowrampet village, Mechal-Malkajgiri District.
They alleged that after paying an initial fee of Rs. 30,00,000, Mr. Venkataramana demanded an additional Rs. 7,00,00,000 to bribe High Court judges for a favorable judgment. Despite making the payment, Mr. Narayana claimed that no progress was made in their case and that Mr. Venkataramana colluded with the opposite party.
The complaint also mentioned caste-based abuse and threats of abduction and murder from Mr. Venkataramana and co-accused, Mr. Ahmed Bin Abdulla Balala, an MLA of Malakpet constituency, when Mr. Narayana demanded the return of the money.
