Karnataka High Court reserves verdict on petition challenging FIR against Nirmala Sitharaman, others over electoral bonds ‘extortion’ complaint

The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday reserved its order on the petition questioning the legality of the registration of a 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 reserved the order after the completion of the arguments on the petition filed by Nalin Kumar Kateel, former president of the BJP’s State unit, who has been arraigned as accused number 4 in the FIR.

The Bengaluru city police had registered the FIR on September 28 based on 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 the Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (JSP). It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons, using the ED, “extorted” around ₹8,000 crore through electoral bonds and the city police in March did not act on his complaint.

Interim order of stay

However, the court on September 30 stayed the investigation into the FIR by observing that “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. The court, in its interim order, had also pointed out that offences of assault, theft, or extortion can be invoked only by the victims, and the complainant in this case is not a victim of “extortion”.

Defending the complaint and the FIR, Senior Advocate Prashanth Bhushan, appearing for the complainant, justified the magistrate’s direction for registering the FIR while contending that every citizen of the country is “an aggrieved person” as “victims of extortion” will not come forward to lodge a complaint in such cases.

Appearing for Mr. Kateel, Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan contended that the law is clear that offences like extortion can be invoked on the complaint of the aggrieved persons and in this case the complainant is neither an aggrieved person nor a victim of alleged “extortion”.

Published - November 20, 2024 09:00 pm IST