Court Upholds FIR Against Advocate Accused of Abetment Under Prevention of Corruption Act Despite Settlement with Complainant
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, presided over by Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, has rejected an application filed by advocate Sachin seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was based on allegations that Sachin, along with co-accused police officers, demanded a bribe to provide better facilities to the complainant's son in jail.
The court emphasized that offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed merely based on a compromise between the complainant and the accused. In this case, despite a settlement reached between the original complainant, Rajesh Kambe, and the applicant, the court maintained that the FIR could not be quashed. The judgment highlighted the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal profession and showing zero tolerance towards corruption.
The case originated from a complaint by Rajesh Kambe, whose son was in police custody under charges of Section 376 of the IPC. It was alleged that the advocate Sachin, acting on behalf of police officers, demanded a bribe to ensure better jail facilities for Kambe's son. Despite the settlement and the complainant's affidavit indicating no objection to quashing the FIR, the court noted the broader implications of such offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, which underscore that offences under special statutes are not to be quashed based merely on settlements between parties. The judgment also drew on the observations from The State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, emphasizing the serious nature of corruption and the judiciary's role in combating it.
While the court acknowledged that Sections 7 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act did not apply to Sachin as he was not a public servant, it found sufficient grounds to sustain charges under Section 12 for abetment. The decision reinforces the principle that legal professionals must maintain high ethical standards and that their actions are subject to scrutiny under anti-corruption laws.
Bottom Line:
Advocate cannot claim immunity from criminal proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of compromise with the complainant. Compromise cannot lead to quashing of FIR under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 7, 12, 15; Indian Penal Code Section 376; Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482
Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc id # 2864602
