E-Paper
Karnataka HC stays probe against Sitharaman, BJP leaders in electoral bond case
The Karnataka high court said permitting further proceedings in this case at least until the objections have been filed would be an abuse of the process of law
The Karnataka high court on Monday stayed further investigation against Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman and several others accused of extortion and allied offences in connection with the electoral bonds scheme.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order on a petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member Nalin Kumar Kateel challenging the criminal complaint against him in the matter.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, stated in his order: “Section 383 mandates that any informant who approaches the court concerned or the jurisdictional police should have been put in fear. Due to that fear, they should have delivered some property to the accused; only then can extortion be prima facie established.”
While pointing out that criminal law can be set into motion by any person, the bench said that there are provisions under the IPC that can only be invoked by the aggrieved. “If the ingredients of the case at hand are considered, who the complainant is becomes significant. The complainant is the co-president of Janadhikara Sangharsa Parishad. It is not his case that he has been put in fear to deliver any property. Therefore, if the complainant wants to press charges under Section 384 of the IPC, he must be an aggrieved informant, which he is not,” the bench said.
While the judgment was being read, advocate Prashant Bhushan pointed out that, according to the A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak case of 1984, anyone can set criminal law into motion. “If there is a crime against society, anyone who is part of society can file a complaint,” Bhushan argued.
To this, the bench responded, “Section 384 is not a crime against society but against an individual.”
The bench further continued: “In this case, permitting further proceedings at least until the objections have been filed would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, further proceedings are stayed until the next date.”
In a petition challenging the registration of the complaint, Kateel claimed that he and the others had been “falsely implicated” with “an ulterior political motive.”
The Karnataka police filed a first information report (FIR) on Saturday against Sitharaman, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president JP Nadda, and several others over allegations of extortion through electoral bonds following a court order the previous day.
The order was issued by a special court in Bengaluru, which led to an FIR being registered at the Tilaknagar police station. The complaint accuses Sitharaman, Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers and BJP officials of extortion and criminal conspiracy.
Adarsh Iyer, co-president of the Janadhikara Sangharsa Parishad (JSP), filed the private complaint that led to the court’s directive. “We have filed a total of 15 complaints against BJP ministers and office bearers after the Supreme Court verdict. But no action was initiated by police, which prompted us to file a complaint in court,” Iyer stated.
The FIR alleges that the BJP collected ₹8,000 crore through the electoral bond scheme, which the Supreme Court recently struck down as unconstitutional. Iyer cited two specific instances: “We have mentioned two instances of collecting ₹230 crores from Vedanta group and ₹39 crores from Aurobindo Pharma by BJP.”
Based on the complaint police registered FIR under IPC sections 384 (Extortion), 120B (Criminal conspiracy), and 34 (Acts done by several persons with a common intention).
Senior Advocate KG Raghavan appeared for Kateel and asserted that even a bare reading of the complaint would not make out allegation of extortion. He termed the complaint frivolous, vexatious and a complete abuse of the process of law.
“The entire allegation is extortion by the accused using government agencies, by putting money in electoral bonds. That can never be extortion in the eyes of law,” he said. He urged the court to stay the criminal proceedings.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for a private respondent and countered that there is a “classic case of extortion” made out. “I am saying this is the most classic case of extortion. If ever there is a case of extortion, this is it. When you put the fear of arrest and the fear of raids etc. in the minds of a company and thereby induce them with that fear to give electoral bonds to the party which controls the ED and thereafter the ED stops the action - what else is extortion? This is classic extortion,” he said.
The matter will be heard next on October 22.
