Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | SLP(Crl) No.-005248-005248 – 2016 |
| Diary Number | 22528/2016 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms High Court’s order and existing Supreme Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A4 when no material implicated him |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that quashing was justified because no cognizable offence was made out against A4 and no material linked him to the alleged transaction. The High Court did not conduct an impermissible “mini trial” but applied Section 482 CrPC principles to dismiss proceedings lacking prima facie evidence. A casual, unconnected allegation of a phone call without time or context cannot sustain a bribery prosecution. Absence of presence at the site and absence of any recovery or recording implicating A4 warranted quashing at the preliminary stage. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Previous Supreme Court decisions deprecating mini trials in quashing proceedings |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Complainant alleged two offers of bribe (₹2 crore + airline ticket; ₹5 crore) for voting abstention or direction in MLC elections. FIR registered on 31.05.2015 under Section 12 PCA, 1988 after audio-video recordings. A4 was not present at the transaction site and only a casual, undated phone call was attributed to him without any corroboration. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Follows | Supreme Court precedents deprecating mini trials in quashing proceedings |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court will uphold quashing of FIRs at a preliminary stage if there is no material linking the accused to the alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- An allegation of a phone call without specific timing, context or corroborating evidence cannot sustain a prosecution for offering a bribe.
- Courts must avoid conducting “mini trials” in Section 482 CrPC quashing petitions; absence of prima facie evidence justifies dismissal.
- Presence of the accused at the scene or recovery/recording implicating them is essential in bribery cases before recording cognizable offences.
- High Court orders quashing proceedings on valid grounds are binding unless shown to disregard settled law on inherent powers.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted its consistent stance against “mini trials” in quashing petitions and found no such trial was conducted by the High Court.
- It examined the complaint and FIR, observing the two bribe offers—₹2 crore plus ticket and ₹5 crore—were unconnected and undated.
- The FIR, though based on audio-video arrangements, did not implicate A4, who was absent at the alleged transaction.
- A lone, undated phone call attributed to A4 lacked particulars to establish a cognizable offence under Section 12 PCA, 1988.
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC permit quashing when no prima facie case is made out; the Supreme Court found valid reasons in the High Court’s order and dismissed the petitions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State of Telangana)
- The High Court erred by conducting a mini trial in quashing proceedings.
- The FIR demonstrated cognizable offences: recorded bribe offers and recovery of amounts warranted continuation of prosecution.
Respondent (Complainant and A4 before High Court)
- No material linked A4 to the alleged bribery transactions.
- Allegations against A4 were so improbable and unconnected that quashing was justified.
Factual Background
The complainant alleged that A4 first offered ₹2 crore plus an airline ticket, and then ₹5 crore, to influence the complainant’s vote in the MLC elections scheduled for 01.06.2015. A written complaint dated 28.05.2015 preceded the FIR, which was registered on 31.05.2015 under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following audio-video recordings. No evidence placed A4 at the scene; only an undated phone call was attributed to him without context or corroboration.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 154, CrPC: Procedures for lodging written and oral complaints; FIR registered only after police verification and suspicion of offence.
- Section 12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Offence of offering illegal gratification to a public servant for exercise of official functions; requires prima facie material linking accused to the act.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed