Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 — Quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings — Principles reiterated:
Quashing justified where allegations against the accused (A4) were vague, casual, and unconnected with the alleged bribery transaction. High Court’s order of quashing not interfered with, since no cognizable offence was disclosed against A4. [Paras 3, 7 & 8]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — S. 12 — Offering of bribe — Offence of:
Allegations that A4 offered bribe of ₹2 crores and foreign ticket for vote in MLC election, not supported by particulars of time, date, or conduct of complainant. No material connecting A4 with subsequent alleged ₹5 crore offer made by another person. Mere casual allegation of a telephone call held insufficient to sustain prosecution. [Paras 5, 7 & 8]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 154 — FIR — Registration of — Delay:
Complaint lodged on 28-05-2015; however, FIR registered only on 31-05-2015 after GD entry. Circumstances noted but not decisive since issue confined to absence of material against A4. [Paras 5 & 6]
Practice and Procedure — Judicial Orders — Brevity and length of reasoning:
Lengthy order of High Court, though citing certain unnecessary precedents, nevertheless contained justifiable reasoning for quashing. Length of order by itself not a ground for interference, since brevity may sometimes be mistaken as non-application of mind. [Para 4]
Held: Supreme Court dismissed SLPs by State and complainant, upholding quashing of proceedings against A4 by High Court. [Paras 8 & 9]
2025 INSC 1173
Page 1 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No.5248 of 2016
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5248 of 2016
The State of Telangana
….Petitioner
Versus
Jerusalem Mathai and Anr.
….Respondent(s)
With
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9333 of 2016
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The Special Leave Petitions are filed against the order
of the High Court, quashing the crime registered by the
Anti-Corruption Bureau Police Station, City Range-I,
Hyderabad as against A4.
2. Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned Senior Counsel
appeared for the State and Mr. G. Prakash, learned counsel
appeared for the complainant in the separate Special Leave
Page 2 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No.5248 of 2016
Petition. It was contended that the High Court has erred
insofar as conducting a mini trial in the quashing
proceedings which has been deprecated by this Court on
many occasions. The FIR is read out to indicate that there is
a cognizable offence made out, there were also recordings
made, and the bribe amounts recovered, in which event,
there should not have been an order of quashing at such a
preliminary stage.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents, however,
pointed out that there was absolutely no material against
A4, the petitioner before the High Court, and the quashing
was on valid grounds as no cognizable offence being made
out and the allegations made in the FIR and the complaint,
at least against A4, are so improbable as to justify the
quashing of the proceedings.
4. True, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has
written an order running into pages, quoting various
decisions and extracts made from them. Some of the
decisions quoted were on faulty investigation which need
Page 3 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No.5248 of 2016
not have been referred to. 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. Brevity at times is a virtue but often
in legalese it is faulted as levity and in adjudicatory orders,
projected as non-application of mind. However, we are not
convinced that there was a mini trial conducted or that
there was no justifiable reason to quash the complaint.
5. Suffice it to notice the facts leading to the registration
of the FIR. The complainant, who is one of the petitioners
before us, in writing, complained against A4 and two
others through Annexure P1 dated 28.05.2015. The same
was addressed to the Director General, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Hyderabad, Telangana. But no FIR is seen to have
been registered on 28.05.2015. As per the complaint, first,
it was alleged that the petitioner before the High Court had
offered him Rs.2 crores and a ticket to leave the country or
vote in the elections to the Member of Legislative Council
(MLC) scheduled on 01.06.2015 in favour of a particular
Page 4 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No.5248 of 2016
political party. The second paragraph indicates that a
higher offer of Rs.5 crores was made for the identical
conduct of abstaining from the voting or to vote in a
particular manner. It was also alleged that the person who
made the second offer specified that the transactions would
be carried out by another. There was no indication in the
complaint as to when such offer was made and nothing
stated as to the response made by the complainant. It was
also not alleged that the two instances were in any way
connected.
6. The FIR indicates that the information was received
on 28.05.2015 at 15:00 hours but the general diary
reference shows the entry made as on 31.05.2015 at 23:00
hours. The FIR is also dated 31.05.2015. As noted above, no
FIR was registered on the written complaint made by the
complainant, a Member of the Legislative Assembly, under
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
FIR further indicates that the police were present at a
particular location, wherein the persons referred to in the
Page 5 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No.5248 of 2016
second paragraph of the complaint along with another,
having come to the residence of the friend of the
complainant. There were arrangements made for audio
and video recordings. It is also stated that the materials
recorded disclosed reasons to suspect the crime and
cognizable offence by the accused on which reasoning the
crime was registered under Section 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 for the offence of offering bribe on
the eve of the MLC elections to the MLA for exercise of
franchise in a particular manner.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner before the High Court, A4
was not present on the occasion when the transaction is
alleged to have occurred. As we indicated earlier, 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. The presence of A-4 is not reported
when the alleged transaction occurred.
8. We would not speak on the incident that occurred on
31.05.2015 since the persons allegedly involved in the said
Page 6 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No.5248 of 2016
transactions are not before us. 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. We find absolutely
no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court and
dismiss the Special Leave Petitions.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….…..……………………. CJI.
(B.R. GAVAI)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
September 26, 2025.
