Karnataka High Court stays investigation against Nirmala Sitharaman, others over electoral bonds ‘extortion’ complaint

The High Court of Karnataka on Monday stayed the investigation into the First Information Report (FIR) filed against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and others for allegedly “extorting” thousands of crores of rupees from companies by misusing the electoral bond scheme and using the agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the interim order on a petition filed by Nalin Kumar Kateel, former president of BJP’s State unit, who has been arraigned as accused number 4 in the FIR.

The Bengaluru city police had filed an FIR on September 28 based the September 27 direction given by a magistrate court, which had acted on a private complaint filed in April by Adarsh R. Iyer, co-president of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP). It was alleged in the complaint that the accused, using the ED, “extorted” around ₹8,000 crore through electoral bonds and the city police in March did not act on his complaint.

“Prima facie, the ingredients of Section 383 (extortion) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are not met in the case at hand, for it to become an offence under Section 384 (punishment for extortion) of the IPC. Therefore, permitting further investigation, into the aforesaid crime, would become an abuse of the process of the law, again prima facie. Therefore, further investigation in the case at hand shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing,” the court said in its interim order.

Also, the court noted that “though it is settled principle of that the criminal law can be set into motion by any persons but there are some offences in the IPC that they could be set into motion only by the aggrieved persons/victim.” The offences of assault, theft, or extortion can be invoked only by the victims, the court pointed out.

Who is complainant

“...If the contents of the complaint in the case at hand are noticed, who is the complainant becomes significant. The complainant, as observed, is the co-president of JSP. It is not his case that he has been put into fear to deliver any property. It is not his case that he parted with any property. Therefore, the complainant, in the case at hand, if he wants to project Section 384 of IPC, should be an aggrieved informant, under Section 383, which he is not,” the court observed.

Earlier, senior advocate K.G. Raghavan, appearing for Mr. Kateel, has contended that the complaint itself is vague and does not make out any ingredient for the offence of extortion against any of the accused.

‘Classic case of extortion’

However, senior advocate Prashanth Bhushan, appearing for Mr. Iyer, claimed that “it is a classic case of extortion where ED had generated fear on certain companies to purchase electoral bonds on behalf of the accused named in the FIR”. He also contended that investigation should be permitted as no person, who has been put to fear by ED will never come forward to lodge a complaint.

Published - September 30, 2024 05:59 pm IST