The State of Telangana Anti-Corruption Bureau vs Jerusalem Mathai and Elvis Stephenson

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

JUDGEMENT

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.26 17:09:14 IST appeared for the complainant in the separate Special Leave Reason: Page 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.

Page 6 of 6 SLP (Crl.) No.5248 of 2016