The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to quash a corruption case registered against an advocate accused of acting as a middleman in an alleged bribe demand for providing better facilities to an accused in police custody.
The court observed that corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot simply be closed because the complainant and the accused later reach a settlement. The bench held that there was sufficient material suggesting abetment of a corruption offence and allowed the prosecution to continue.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Judges, Says Allegations Based
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) by a man whose son had been arrested in a rape case in 2018.
According to the complaint, police officers allegedly demanded money through advocate Sachin Chandramani Wankhede, who was representing the complainant’s son in court. The amount initially demanded was ₹5 lakh, which was later negotiated down to about ₹1.25 lakh.
The complainant alleged that the payment was sought to ensure better facilities for his son while in police custody. After receiving the complaint, the ACB conducted a verification exercise in the presence of panch witnesses and recorded conversations between the complainant and the advocate.
Based on the report, an FIR was registered in 2018 under Sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A charge sheet was later filed before the Special Court in Akola.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Folk Singer Neha Singh Rathore In FIR Over Posts On PM
Settlement Between the Parties
During the pendency of the case, the complainant filed an affidavit stating that the complaint had been made in confusion and misunderstanding.
He told the court that he had no objection if the FIR against the advocate was quashed, saying the dispute had been settled between the parties.
However, the State opposed the plea, arguing that corruption cases cannot be closed merely because the complainant later changes his stand.
Court’s Observations
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke examined the material collected during investigation, including the verification panchanama and the voice sample analysis.
The court noted that recorded conversations indicated that the advocate had communicated the alleged demand for money made by police officers to the complainant. The voice sample analysis also matched the applicant’s voice with the recorded conversation, strengthening the prosecution’s case at the preliminary stage.
The judge also addressed the settlement between the complainant and the accused. Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the court observed that offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have compromised.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Ombudsman Proceedings Against Village Officer, Says He Is Not
“The power to quash criminal proceedings cannot be exercised in corruption cases merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender,” the court noted while citing earlier Supreme Court decisions.
Applicability of Corruption Law
The court clarified that the advocate could not be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act because that provision applies to public servants, and the applicant was not a public servant.
Similarly, Section 15 of the Act was found not applicable.
However, the court held that Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which deals with punishment for abetment of corruption offences, could still apply.
The judge explained that abetment includes intentionally aiding or encouraging the commission of an offence, as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
After examining the material, the court concluded that the advocate’s conduct could fall within the definition of abetment.
Remarks on the Legal Profession
While discussing the role of lawyers, the court also made broader observations about professional ethics.
It noted that the legal profession is considered a noble service and lawyers are expected to maintain high standards of honesty, integrity and fairness while representing clients.
The court said advocates must act in a manner befitting their status as officers of the court and members of a profession dedicated to the administration of justice.
Court’s Decision
After examining the facts and legal principles, the Bombay High Court held that there was a prima facie case of abetment under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant.
The court ruled that corruption allegations cannot be wiped out solely on the basis of compromise between the parties and that the investigation material justified continuation of the proceedings.
Accordingly, the application seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings was rejected, allowing the prosecution to continue before the Special Court in Akola.
Case Title: Sachin Chandramani Wankhede v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Application (APL) No. 1482 of 2025
Decision Date: 10 March 2026
