Karnataka High Court quashes Electoral Bonds case against Nirmala Sitharaman, others

The Karnataka High Court Tuesday quashed a criminal case registered against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders including Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, BJP chief JP Nadda and leader Nalin Kumar Kateel in connection with the Electoral Bonds scheme..The order was passed by Justice M Nagaprasanna who had earlier stayed the investigation in the case after Kateel challenged the registration of a first information report (FIR) against Sitharaman and others for extortion and other offences.Justice Nagaprasanna said that the claims of extortion made in the complaint filed by Iyer were a figment of his imagination and that the petitioner had no locus standi to file such complaint..“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 High Court said..The police had registered the FIR against Sitharaman, BJP chief JP Nadda, Kateel, unknown officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and others after the the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru took cognisance of a private complaint filed against them.Activist Adarsh R Iyer of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath alleged in the complaint that BJP leaders, in connivance with some ED officials, had extorted private firms and made illegal gains under the Electoral Bonds scheme that was struck down by the Supreme Court in February this year.Iyer claimed that the accused committed “extortion under the guise and garb of electoral bonds and benefited to the tune of ₹8000 crores and more.”The complaint mentioned instances of raids by ED on companies such as Vedanta, Sterlite and Aurobindo Pharma. He said that such raids were undertaken to get the proprietors of these companies to donate money to the BJP through the Electoral Bonds scheme.In the petition challenging the registration of a case in this matter, Kateel claimed that he and the others have been "falsely implicated" in the case "with an ulterior political motive.".The High Court in its order, however, held that for an offence of extortion as defined under Section 383 of the IPC, the accused should have put the complainant in “fear of delivery of property.” However, in the present case, no such material was prima facie found, it said.“The meeting of ingredients, in the case at hand of Section 383 of the IPC, as elucidated by the Apex Court, is a figment of imagination, of the complainant,” it said..The Court had reserved orders after hearing arguments of advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represented the complainant. Bhushan argued that there was no bar in law to prevent a citizen from setting the criminal law in motion when it comes to grave offences.However, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, appearing for Kateel had contended that the requirements to register the offence of extortion were not met..In its order, the Court dismissed Bhushan’s argument that the criminal law can be set in motion by any person and said instead that offences such as extortion were person specific and thus, only an aggrieved person can initiate criminal proceedings in such cases.“The concept that criminal law can be set into motion by any person is not a concept that is dropped from air. It bears statutory recognition, as obtaining under Section 39 of the CrPC… Sections 383 and 384 are persons specific, which would mean that they can be alleged only by the aggrieved person. It is not public specific,” the High Court said..Senior Counsel KG Raghavan and Advocate Suyog Herele E appeared for Kateel.Additional SPP BN Jagadeesha appeared for the State.Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Shivamurthy AR appeared for Iyer, a respondent party in the present case and the original complainant. .[Read Order]