Karnataka HC Stays Further Investigation In Extortion Case Against BJP Leaders Including Nirmala Sitharaman In Relation To Electoral Bonds
|The Karnataka High Court stayed further investigation in an extortion case against the BJP Leaders on allegations of taking electoral bonds as a quid pro quo for favours.
The Court listed the matter for further hearing on October 22, 2024, after the Co-President of Janadhikara Sangharsha Parishath (de-facto complainant) alleged that the petitioners indulged in extortion under Section 384 of the IPC. The complainant alleged that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had generated fear, on certain Companies, to take electoral bonds as a quid pro quo for favours.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, “Prima facie, the ingredients of Section 383 of the IPC are not met in the case at hand, for it to become an offence under Section 384 of the IPC. Therefore, permitting further investigation, into the aforesaid crime, would become an abuse of the process of the law, again prima facie. Therefore, further investigation in the case at hand shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.”
Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Prashanth Bhushan represented the respondent.
The petitioners called into question the registration of a crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 384, 120B and 34 of the IPC.
The High Court explained that Section 383 of the IPC mandated that any informant who approaches the concerned Court or the jurisdictional police should have been put into fear and due to such fear, he should have delivered some property to the accused. “It is only then extortion may be established prima facie, against that accused qua the victim,” the Court noted.
“It is settled principle of law, that criminal law can be set into motion by any person, but there are provisions under the IPC that they can be set into motion only by the aggrieved to illustrate, offence of assault, offence of thieving, under Section 379 of the IPC, or extortion under Section 383 of the IPC. It is only if the accused has put the victim under fear, the victim would mean the first informant to deliver any property, and it is delivered, it is then it would amount to extortion,” the Court reiterated.
“If the contents of the complaint in the case at hand are noticed, who is the complainant becomes significant. The complainant, as observed, is the Co-President of Janadhikara Sangharsha Parishath. It is not his case that he has been put into fear to deliver any property. It is not his case that he parted with any property. Therefore, the complainant, in the case at hand, if he wants to project Section 384 of the IPC, should be an aggrieved informant, under Section 383 of the IPC, which he is not,” the Court pointed out.
The Bench referred to the decision in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984), wherein the Apex Court held, “Merely because the respondent was Chief Minister at the relevant time and the sugar cooperatives had some of their grievances pending consideration before the Government and pressure was brought about to make the donations promising consideration of such grievances, possibly by way of reciprocity, we do not think the appellant is justified in his contention that the ingredients of the offence of extortion have been made out.”
“The que taken from the order of the Apex Court where the Apex Court dealt with electoral bonds contending that the general criminal procedure should be availed of by the petitioners therein and cannot direct the SIT to go into criminality, being the reason for registration of the subject crime also cannot be accepted, as Section 384 is unequivocal,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court stayed further investigation against the petitioners.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter for further hearing on October 22, 2024.
Cause Title: Naleen Kumar Kateel & Ors. v. The State Of Karnataka & Ors.