The Crossbill Team
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 3) quashed an extortion case filed against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) chief JP Nadda, former and current presidents of the Karnataka BJP unit, and unnamed officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over allegations related to the BJP government's electoral bonds scheme.
The case was based on a private complaint by Adarsh Iyer, an anti-corruption activist affiliated with the NGO Janadhikara Sangharsha Parishath.
Iyer alleged that Sitharaman and others extorted Rs 8,000 crore from corporates through the scheme, leveraging threats of ED action. After the Bengaluru police initially refused to register an FIR, Iyer approached a special court for elected representatives, which directed the filing of an FIR on September 27.
The FIR was registered on September 28 under IPC Sections 384 (extortion) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
The order was issued by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who stated that the extortion allegations in Iyer's complaint were a figment of his imagination and that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to file such a complaint, Bar and Bench reported.
“The Apex Court holds where the allegations made in the FIR even if they are taken to their face value do not constitute a prima facie offence, such crime should be nipped in the bud. In the case on hand, there is not even a modicum of ingredients of the offence made out even to its prima facie sense, what the complainant projects is a huge hocus-pocus, but alas, he has no locus. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, and annihilate the crime so registered against the petitioner/accused,” the court said.
The High Court had earlier stayed proceedings in the case on September 30, with the ruling delivered by the same single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna.
On Tuesday, it ruled that Iyer lacked the locus standi to file the complaint, as he was not a direct victim of the alleged extortion under IPC Sections 383 and 384.
In its judgment, the court remarked, “What the complainant projects is a huge hocus-pocus, but alas, he has no locus.” The ruling effectively dismissed the case, bringing relief to those named in the complaint.
The case was based on a private complaint by Adarsh Iyer, an anti-corruption activist affiliated with the NGO Janadhikara Sangharsha Parishath.
Iyer alleged that Sitharaman and others extorted Rs 8,000 crore from corporates through the scheme, leveraging threats of ED action. After the Bengaluru police initially refused to register an FIR, Iyer approached a special court for elected representatives, which directed the filing of an FIR on September 27.
The FIR was registered on September 28 under IPC Sections 384 (extortion) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
The order was issued by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who stated that the extortion allegations in Iyer's complaint were a figment of his imagination and that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to file such a complaint, Bar and Bench reported.
“The Apex Court holds where the allegations made in the FIR even if they are taken to their face value do not constitute a prima facie offence, such crime should be nipped in the bud. In the case on hand, there is not even a modicum of ingredients of the offence made out even to its prima facie sense, what the complainant projects is a huge hocus-pocus, but alas, he has no locus. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, and annihilate the crime so registered against the petitioner/accused,” the court said.
The High Court had earlier stayed proceedings in the case on September 30, with the ruling delivered by the same single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna.
On Tuesday, it ruled that Iyer lacked the locus standi to file the complaint, as he was not a direct victim of the alleged extortion under IPC Sections 383 and 384.
In its judgment, the court remarked, “What the complainant projects is a huge hocus-pocus, but alas, he has no locus.” The ruling effectively dismissed the case, bringing relief to those named in the complaint.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment