The Crossbill Team
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 30), temporarily stayed the investigation into a recent complaint accusing Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, Union Health Minister J.P. Nadda and others of extortion, allegedly using electoral bonds as a pretext, with claims of benefiting by over Rs 8,000 crore. On Saturday, the Bengaluru police had registered an FIR in connection with the case, acting on the directives of a special court in the city.
The order came in reponse to a quashing petition filed by Naleen Kumar Kateel, former President of the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), Karnataka unit, who is a co-accused in the case. The petition challenged the investigation stemming from a complaint lodged by Adarsh Iyer, co-president of the Janadhikara Sangharsha Parishath.
Iyer’s complaint alleges that government agencies, such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), were used to intimidate companies, coercing them into purchasing electoral bonds under threat.
Single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while pausing the investigation until October 22, noted that the complainant, Iyer was not an aggrieved party in the alleged extortion case.
Justice Nagaprasanna said, "Permitting investigation even prima facie, till the statement of objection are filed by respondent will be abuse of process of law. In that light I deem it appropriate to interdict further investigation in the matter till next date of hearing," Live Law reported.
Justice Nagaprasanna stated that although criminal law can be initiated by any individual, certain offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as assault, theft under Section 379, or extortion under Section 383, require the complainant to be the victim.
He pointed out that Iyer had not claimed that he was forced to surrender property or had suffered any direct loss, which is essential for invoking Section 384, which outlines punishment for extortion.
Prashant Bhushan, representing Iyer, argued that individuals intimidated by agencies like the ED—one of the accused—would be unlikely to come forward, so the investigation should proceed. However, the judge rejected this argument, emphasizing that for an extortion case under Section 384, the complainant must be a direct victim, which Iyer was not.
Justice Nagaprasanna concluded that the essential components of extortion under Section 383 were absent, and continuing the investigation would be an abuse of legal process. Therefore, the probe will remain suspended until the next hearing.
"It is only then prima facie extortion can be established against the accused. It is a well settled principle that criminal law can be set in motion by anyone but there are provisions in IPC that they can be set in motion by only aggrieved. It is not his (complainants) case that he is put under fear. The complainant in the case at hand wants to project Section 383 of IPC, he is an aggrieved party, which he is not,” the court said, quoted Live Law.
The complaint, filed last week and based on directions from a special court in Bengaluru, accused Sitharaman, BJP President J.P. Nadda, Karnataka BJP leader Naleen Kateel, and Karnataka BJP President B.Y. Vijayendra, along with the ED.
Additionally, Iyer claimed that Sitharaman conspired with the ED to conduct raids on major companies to pressure them into contributing through electoral bonds.
Electoral bonds, introduced by the BJP government in 2018, allow anonymous donations to political parties without accruing interest. However, in February 2024, the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, citing that they violated voters’ right to information. The opposition has frequently accused the BJP of using ED raids as a tool against political adversaries.
The order came in reponse to a quashing petition filed by Naleen Kumar Kateel, former President of the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), Karnataka unit, who is a co-accused in the case. The petition challenged the investigation stemming from a complaint lodged by Adarsh Iyer, co-president of the Janadhikara Sangharsha Parishath.
Iyer’s complaint alleges that government agencies, such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), were used to intimidate companies, coercing them into purchasing electoral bonds under threat.
Single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while pausing the investigation until October 22, noted that the complainant, Iyer was not an aggrieved party in the alleged extortion case.
Justice Nagaprasanna said, "Permitting investigation even prima facie, till the statement of objection are filed by respondent will be abuse of process of law. In that light I deem it appropriate to interdict further investigation in the matter till next date of hearing," Live Law reported.
Justice Nagaprasanna stated that although criminal law can be initiated by any individual, certain offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as assault, theft under Section 379, or extortion under Section 383, require the complainant to be the victim.
He pointed out that Iyer had not claimed that he was forced to surrender property or had suffered any direct loss, which is essential for invoking Section 384, which outlines punishment for extortion.
Prashant Bhushan, representing Iyer, argued that individuals intimidated by agencies like the ED—one of the accused—would be unlikely to come forward, so the investigation should proceed. However, the judge rejected this argument, emphasizing that for an extortion case under Section 384, the complainant must be a direct victim, which Iyer was not.
Justice Nagaprasanna concluded that the essential components of extortion under Section 383 were absent, and continuing the investigation would be an abuse of legal process. Therefore, the probe will remain suspended until the next hearing.
"It is only then prima facie extortion can be established against the accused. It is a well settled principle that criminal law can be set in motion by anyone but there are provisions in IPC that they can be set in motion by only aggrieved. It is not his (complainants) case that he is put under fear. The complainant in the case at hand wants to project Section 383 of IPC, he is an aggrieved party, which he is not,” the court said, quoted Live Law.
The complaint, filed last week and based on directions from a special court in Bengaluru, accused Sitharaman, BJP President J.P. Nadda, Karnataka BJP leader Naleen Kateel, and Karnataka BJP President B.Y. Vijayendra, along with the ED.
Additionally, Iyer claimed that Sitharaman conspired with the ED to conduct raids on major companies to pressure them into contributing through electoral bonds.
Electoral bonds, introduced by the BJP government in 2018, allow anonymous donations to political parties without accruing interest. However, in February 2024, the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, citing that they violated voters’ right to information. The opposition has frequently accused the BJP of using ED raids as a tool against political adversaries.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment