The Supreme Court has requested the Telangana government to provide a response to a petition by Senior Advocate Vedula Venkataraman, contesting the criminal proceedings against him over allegations of accepting ₹7 crore from a client to bribe High Court judge for favorable judgments.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih has issued a notice to the Telangana Government in response to an appeal filed by the Senior Advocate challenging the Telangana’s High Court refusal to quash the case.

The Senior Advocate is accused of taking a bribe of ₹7 Crore from a client on an assurance that the amount will be utilised to secure a favorable verdict by bribing the judge of the High Court. It is also reported to have been discovered that the Senior Advocate also allegedly colluded with the opposing party, receiving Rs. 25 crore from them as well.

However,the advocate failed to appear in the matter,and aggrieved by the same the complainant demanded a refund of the amount, which the advocate allegedly refused to return.Additionally, it is also alleged that the senior advocate hurled caste based slurs at the complainant and even threatened harm to the complainants family.

Hence, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the advocate under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under the relevant provisions Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Subsequently, the Senior Advocate approached the Telangana High Court seeking to quash the criminal case registered against him.However, the High Court dismissed the plea emphasising that the allegations against the advocate are grave and even raised apprehensions about judicial independence which calls for an investigation, Justice K Lakshman of the High Court observed that,

"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."

The High Court provided protection to the senior advocate from arrest after observing that certain allegations made by the complainant appeared to be exaggerated.

"The conduct of Respondent No. 3 (complainant) 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..."

The Senior Advocate aggrieved by the same knocked the door of the Supreme Court. In his appeal it was contended that the FIR against him lacked prima facie evidence and failed to meet the legal standards laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2014 SC 187), which requires a preliminary inquiry to be conducted before registering a FIR in specific cases. He further put forth that no chargesheet has been filed to date, and questioned the credibility of the complaint.

The matter is further listed on 24th January, 2025.

Case Title: Vedula Venkataraman v. State of Telangana & Ors.SLP (Crl.) Dy. No. 49000 of 2024

Advocate For Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR,Mr. Nitin Meshram & ors

Advocate For Respondent: Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR,Mr. S.Uday Bhanu & ors

Source: Bar and Bench & Livelaw.