The Kerala High Court on Monday refused to stay the FIR filed against the Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, President of the Kerala High Court Advocates Association. It was alleged that he collected money from clients under the guise of bribing High Court judges.
Advocate Saiby, who is accused of taking money from clients in the name of bribing judges, had petitioned the Kerala High Court to have the FIR against him dismissed and all further proceedings stayed. The FIR was filed against Advocate Saiby by the Ernakulam Central Police Station under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 420 of the IPC. The FIR had been registered with the State Police Chief’s approval.
A bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath questioned Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar, who was appearing on the petitioner’s behalf, as to why the petitioner was in such a hurry and why he couldn’t face investigation. The Court initially questioned him about why he had come quickly to the Court just two days after filing the FIR.
“On the surface, the allegations appear to be serious. It is something that tarnishes the entire justice system,” it was observed orally.
“You are an officer of this Court and an office bearer of a responsible institution; it is also your responsibility to prove your innocence and remove the shadow that has been cast on the entire justice delivery system,” the Court continued.
Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar told the Court on Monday that the petitioner was not attempting to flee, but that the complainant was the commissioner of police. The Court responded that the investigation was carried out based on information provided by the High Court Registrar to the State Police Chief.
“Even under your plea, a preliminary investigation was conducted by the High Court Vigilance and then by the Police, and the Police felt it was necessary to file the FIR. A new investigation has begun, and you rush to Court the next day?”, it inquired.
The Court was adamant that the plea was filed too soon.
“You arrive after the final report has been submitted. If this was the final report, I would have admitted and stayed it, but it’s too early. Allow the investigation to take place. I’m not even going to admit it”, the Court noted.
According to the Counsel, the general public was also affected by the matter due to the media and social media. “Facts have been twisted by the media and social media. The media has an impact on all of us,” the Senior Counsel made the submission.
The Court responded by saying that even if the allegations were true, the plea was still premature.
As a result, the Court directed the prosecution to seek instructions in the matter. The matter has been scheduled for next week. It has also refused to pass the requested interim order.
According to Advocate Saiby’s plea, a group of three or four lawyers concocted a false complaint to the Registrar General, who then notified the State Police Chief to investigate the matter. The State Police Chief had directed the City Commissioner of Police to launch a preliminary investigation. However, it has been claimed that no concrete evidence has been presented to implicate the petitioner in the crime. It has been claimed that the Commissioner of Police summoned all of the people named in the complaint and recorded their statements. However, the petitioner submits that none of those statements revealed anything against him that would justify the allegations levelled against him by the lawyers.
Despite this, the petitioner claimed that the crime was registered against him due to the unwarranted involvement of media personnel and a group of three or four lawyers who had personal animosity towards the petitioner.
The petitioner added that the filing of the FIR had ruined his entire career.
“Additionally, the media, both print and visual, had given several fake news items against the petitioner because they have a long-standing grudge against the petitioner, as there was clash and dispute between media and lawyers, and the privileges enjoyed by the mediamen were taken away on the intervention of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, on the petitioner’s and others’ initiation,” the petitioner claimed.
The petitioner has filed the petition with the High Court on this basis.
“A perusal of the entire allegations in the FIR reveals that there are no ingredients to attract the sections for committing any such offences under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 420 of the IPC. Because no cognizable offence has been established against the petitioner for investigating the matter, this case falls into the rarest of rare cases in which the petitioner was falsely implicated by a group of three or four lawyers and the police, and is thus liable to be quashed,” according to the plea.
