Bribe Demands In Name Of Judges Cut At Root Of Institutional Integrity: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Advocate
The Bench noted that the allegations of taking money to bribe judges cannot be treated as ordinary cheating, holding that full-fledged investigation is vital to protect the credibility of the judiciary.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court emphasizing that allegations of demanding money from litigants to bribe judges "cut at the very root of the integrity of the institution", has refused to quash an FIR registered against an advocate accused of demanding lakhs of rupees from a litigant under the pretext of securing bail from a High Court Judge.
The Bench dismissed the petition filed under Section 528 BNSS by Advocate Dayeena Banu, holding that the matter involves institutional credibility and demands an unhindered investigation.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “…the complaint is registered on the basis of a direction in a criminal petition to investigate and bring in the perpetrators of such allegation. The allegation, if found to be true, would cut at the root of the integrity of the Institution. Therefore, in such cases investigation is a must as the question involved is Institutional integrity. The offence of cheating allegedly committed by an individual in the normal circumstance becomes an institutional concern when such cases are projected. Therefore, there can be no question of interdiction of investigation on any ground whatsoever unless investigation would ensue and a final report is filed before the concerned Court”.
Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha appeared for the petitioner and B.N. Jagadeesha, SPP-I appeared for the respondent.
The case stems from a complaint lodged by Theresa, whose son was arrested in a murder case and remanded to judicial custody. Desperate to secure his release, Theresa was initially approached by one Marina Fernandes, who allegedly demanded ₹10 lakh claiming it would be given to a lower court judicial officer. When bail was not granted, Fernandes issued three cheques that could not be encashed.
Theresa was then introduced to another woman named Aarathi, who claimed proximity to a High Court Judge and collected ₹72,000. When bail remained pending, Aarathi demanded another ₹1 lakh. Subsequently, petitioner-advocate Miss Dayeena Banu entered the scene and allegedly told the mother that High Court Judges do not accept small amounts like ₹1–2 lakh and that ₹50 lakh and above would be required to secure an order of release.
Aggrieved, the mother submitted a written complaint directly to the High Court on December 18, 2024. A coordinate Bench took cognizance of the letter, secured the records of the pending bail application, and observed that the advocate appeared to have indulged in demanding money from the client in the name of the Court. The Bench directed the Registrar General to initiate criminal proceedings, leading to the registration of Crime No. 117/2024 at Vidhana Soudha Police Station under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) [Cheating / corresponding to Section 420 IPC].
The petitioner argued that he was already facing proceedings before the Bar Council and that the ingredients of cheating under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were not attracted. It was further contended that the FIR had been registered without any preliminary inquiry and amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
The State and the Registrar General opposed the plea, submitting that allegations of openly soliciting money in the name of judges strike at the reputation and integrity of the judiciary. It was argued that the investigation had been stalled due to interim orders and should be permitted to proceed fully.
The Court rejected the contention that the offence of cheating was not prima facie made out, observing, “The traditional interpretation of the offence of cheating that one should induce the other with a dishonest intention from the inception for release of a property or otherwise is blurred today in the light of emerging crime. Cheating has developed into various facets. Therefore, the law being dynamic, the interpretation of law must also to be dynamic. The inducement and release of property is clearly made out in the case at hand as the mother of Vishnu Devan is induced in parting money for the purpose of arranging bail to her son, which ostensibly would be with a dishonest intention right from the inception. Therefore, the submission of the learned senior counsel that the ingredients of offence of cheating is not even met to its semblance is to say the least, is preposterous. It is on the face of it made out”.
The Court also declined to interfere with the investigation at the threshold. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Neeharika Infrastructure, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kunwar Singh and Somjeet Mallick, it reiterated that an FIR is not an encyclopedia and that courts should ordinarily not thwart a legitimate investigation where the allegations disclose cognizable offences.
Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the challenge, vacated all interim/protective orders, and cleared the way for the police to complete the investigation.
Cause Title: Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Criminal Petition No. 2169 of 2025
Appearances:
Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Hashmath Pasha with Adv. Mohammed Mubarak.
Respondents: B.N. Jagadeesha, SPP-I, Adv. Madhukar Deshpande, Adv. Chetan V.