“What The Complainant Projects Is A Huge Hocus-Pocus, But Alas, He Has No Locus”- Karnataka HC Quashes Electoral Bond Case Against BJP Leaders

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case relating to Electoral Bond against the leaders of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) involving Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, officials of Enforcement Directorate (ED), office bearers of BJP, the then President of the Karnataka State BJP Naleen Kumar Kateel, Vice President and current President of Karnataka State BJP Vijayendra B.Y., and other office bearers.

Former Member of Parliament (MP) and Karnataka State President of BJP, Naleen Kumar Kateel had filed a Criminal Petition before the Court against the registration of a crime under Sections 384, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna remarked, “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 Cr.P.C., and annihilate the crime so registered against the petitioner/accused.”

The Bench said that the complaint suffers from want of locus to register the complaint even for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC for extortion.

Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Prashanth Bhushan and Additional State Public Prosecutor (SPP) appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case -

As per the complainant’s case, the Petitioner and other accused were either holding constitutional posts or office bearers of BJP. The complainant described himself to be the Co-President of Janaadhikaaara Sangharsha Parishath. It was the averment that the Government of India in 2018 had notified Electoral Bond Scheme 2018 in exercise of its power under Section 31(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (RBI Act) and had brought in certain statutory amendments. The Complainant narrated that modus operandi of the accused was that the Finance Minister (FM) would take the assistance of the ED officers to conduct raids, searches, arrest of various corporate bodies, their Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), and Managing Directors inter alia.

It was alleged that, fearing raids unleashed at the direction of FM, the persons against whom searches, seizures and arrests were to be made, were put in fear and coercion to buy electoral bonds worth several crores, which were encashed by other accused. Hence, a complaint was registered and the concerned Court referred the matter for investigation. Thereafter, the High Court granted interim order of stay of further investigation. The Petitioner, therefore, sought quashing of the proceedings before the High Court.

The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “It is not the case of the complainant, even in the complaint, that he has been put to fear of injury and he has delivered any property to the accused. Therefore, 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. He is a Co-President of a public forum and projects the complaint to be a public interest litigation.”

The Court further said that, if the offence under Section 383 as made penal under Section 384 itself is not made out, it can hardly be said that further investigation must be permitted only for offence under Section 120-B of the IPC and therefore, the offence of 120-B of the IPC gets subsumed on the reasons rendered to hold that the offence under Section 384 is not met in the case at hand.

“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 Cr.P.C. … The person who has suffered assault should necessarily be the complainant. If he chooses not to register the complaint for reasons best known to him, a stranger cannot complain that a stranger has been assaulted and he is the victim. Likewise, as held by the Apex Court in the case of SALIB supra theft would not require consent. Extortion would require putting a person in fear of consent”, it added.

The Court also noted that the Magistrate who has referred the matter for investigation in terms of his Order supra does not advert to this issue and merely because the Complainant has registered a complaint which projects alleged extortion, the Magistrate cannot become a rubber stamp Presiding Officer to the Complaint, to refer the matter for investigation, without application of mind to the relevant statutory provisions.

“Therefore, issue No.2 is also answered against the complainant, holding that he is an alien to the transaction and an alien cannot complain of extortion”, it said.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings against the accused.

Cause Title- Naleen Kumar Kateel v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan and Advocate Suyog Herele E.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Prashanth Bhushan, Addl. SPP B.N. Jagadeesha, and Advocate Shivamurthy A.R.

Click here to read/download the Judgment