The Supreme Court of India on Friday dismissed Special Leave Petitions filed by the State of Telangana and a complainant, thereby upholding a High Court order that quashed a criminal case registered against one of the accused, referred to as A4, in an alleged cash-for-vote scam during the 2015 Member of Legislative Council (MLC) elections. The bench found there was “nothing to connect A4 to the crime” beyond a “casual allegation.”
The case was heard by a bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, who concluded there was “absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court.”
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a written complaint dated May 28, 2015, filed by a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) with the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Hyderabad. In the complaint, the MLA alleged that the accused A4 (the petitioner before the High Court) had offered him Rs. 2 crores to either vote in favor of a particular political party in the upcoming MLC elections scheduled for June 1, 2015, or to leave the country to abstain from voting.
The complaint further detailed a second, higher offer of Rs. 5 crores for the same purpose, allegedly made by another individual who specified that a third person would carry out the transaction. The Supreme Court judgment noted that the original complaint “did not indicate… when such offer was made and nothing stated as to the response made by the complainant.” The judgment also observed, “It was also not alleged that the two instances were in any way connected.”
Despite the complaint being made on May 28, 2015, no FIR was immediately registered. An FIR was eventually registered on May 31, 2015, after ACB officials, present at the residence of the complainant’s friend, made audio and video recordings of an alleged transaction involving other accused persons. A4 was not present during this incident. The crime was registered under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the State of Telangana, Senior Counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, along with counsel for the complainant, Mr. G. Prakash, argued that the High Court had erred by “conducting a mini trial” to quash the proceedings, a practice deprecated by the Supreme Court. They contended that the FIR, recordings, and recovery of bribe money prima facie established a cognizable offense, and therefore, the case should not have been quashed at such a preliminary stage.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondent (A4) argued that there was “absolutely no material against A4” and that the allegations in the FIR were “so improbable as to justify the quashing of the proceedings.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, in its judgment authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, agreed with the High Court’s conclusion. While noting the lengthy nature of the High Court’s order, the bench stated, “For reason, only of brevity having not been employed, we cannot set aside an order which though lengthy, has cited justifiable reasons to quash the proceedings.” The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that a mini-trial had been conducted.
The bench found the lack of connection between A4 and the subsequent events of May 31, 2015, to be a critical factor. The judgment emphasized two key points: “Admittedly, the petitioner before the High Court, A4 was not present on the occasion when the transaction is alleged to have occurred,” and “the allegation made in the complaint against A4 is not in any way linked with the allegation of a higher offer having been made by another.”
Refusing to comment on the incident involving the other accused, the Court focused solely on the evidence pertaining to A4. The bench concluded with a definitive observation: “However, we cannot but notice that there is nothing to connect A4 to the crime, but for a casual allegation raised on a call having been received by the complainant without any indication even of the time when such call was received.”
Finding no grounds to overturn the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court dismissed both Special Leave Petitions.
