The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Telangana government on a petition filed by Senior Advocate Vedula Venkataraman, who is challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly accepting ₹7 crore from a client to bribe High Court judges for favourable orders.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih issued notice to the Telangana government in response to Venkataraman’s appeal against the Telangana High Court’s decision to dismiss his plea to quash the case.
Allegations and FIR Details
Venkataraman is accused of accepting ₹7 crore from a client under the pretext of bribing High Court judges to secure a favorable outcome in the client’s case. When the client demanded the money back due to the advocate’s alleged inaction, Venkataraman reportedly refused and allegedly hurled caste-based abuses while threatening the complainant’s family.
An FIR was subsequently registered against him under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:
– Section 406: Criminal breach of trust,
– Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property,
– Section 504: Intentional insult,
– Section 506: Criminal intimidation,
along with provisions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
High Court’s Observations
Earlier, the Telangana High Court dismissed Venkataraman’s plea to quash the FIR, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations, which raise concerns about judicial independence. Justice K. Lakshman remarked:
“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.”
However, the High Court granted Venkataraman protection from arrest, citing the exaggerated nature of some claims made by the complainant and the lack of evidence suggesting the need for custodial interrogation.
Appeal to the Supreme Court
In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Venkataraman argued that the FIR lacked prima facie evidence and failed to meet the legal standards established in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP, which mandates a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in certain cases. He also noted that no chargesheet has been filed to date, further questioning the credibility of the complaint.
Legal Representation
Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy, along with advocates Mandeep Kalra and Anushna Satapathy, appeared on behalf of Venkataraman, challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings.
