Karnataka HC continues investigation against Sitharaman, BJP leader in electoral bonds case | Latest News India

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order based on a petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member Nalin Kumar Kateel challenging the criminal complaint against him in the matter.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who presided over the case, said in his order: “Section 383 requires that any informant who approaches the court or police concerned must be put in fear.” to hand over some property to the defendant; Only then can extortion be established prima facie.”

While pointing out that the criminal law can be enforced by any person, the court also said that there are provisions in the IPC that can only be invoked by the aggrieved party. “When one considers the circumstances of the present case, who the complainant is becomes significant. The complainant is the Co-President of Janadhikara Sangharsa Parishad. It is not his case that he was made afraid to hand over any property. Therefore, if the appellant wants to frame charges under Section 384 of IPC, he must be an aggrieved informant, which he is not,” the bench said.

While reading out the verdict, advocate Prashant Bhushan pointed out that as per the 1984 AR Antulay vs RS Nayak case, anyone can implement the criminal law. “If it is a crime against society, anyone who is a part of society can file a complaint,” argued Bhushan.

To this, the bench replied: “Section 384 is not a crime against society but against an individual.”

The court continued: “In this case, it would be an abuse of the legal process to allow further proceedings at least until the objections are filed.” The further proceedings are therefore suspended until the next date.”

In a petition against registration of the complaint, Kateel alleged that he and the others were “falsely” accused with “an ulterior political motive”.

The Karnataka Police on Saturday filed a first information report (FIR) against Sitharaman, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president JP Nadda and several others over allegations of extortion through election sureties, following a court order the previous day.

The order was passed by a special court in Bengaluru, resulting in an FIR being registered at Tilaknagar police station. The complaint accuses Sitharaman, Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials and BJP officials of extortion and criminal conspiracy.

Adarsh ​​Iyer, co-president of the Janadhikara Sangharsa Parishad (JSP), filed the private lawsuit that led to the court order. “We have filed a total of 15 complaints against BJP ministers and office-bearers following the Supreme Court verdict. But no action was taken by the police, which prompted us to file a complaint in court,” Iyer said.

The FIR alleges that the BJP was collecting ₹8,000 crore through the electoral bond scheme, which the Supreme Court recently declared unconstitutional. Iyer cited two specific cases: “We have mentioned two cases of collection ₹230 crores from Vedanta Group and ₹39 crores from BJP’s Aurobindo Pharma.”

Based on the complaint, police registered FIR under IPC sections 384 (extortion), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (acts by several persons with common intention).

Senior Advocate KG Raghavan represented Kateel and contended that even a mere reading of the complaint would not reveal any allegation of extortion. He described the complaint as frivolous, vexatious and a complete abuse of the legal process.

“The entire allegation is one of extortion by the defendant with the help of government agencies by investing money in electoral bonds. This can never be extortion in the eyes of the law,” he said. He asked the court to suspend the criminal proceedings.

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan appeared for a private defendant and replied that it was a “classic case of extortion”. “I say this is the most classic case of blackmail. If ever there is a case of blackmail, this is it. If you put the fear of arrest and the fear of raids etc. into a company’s head and use that fear to make them give election guarantees to the party that controls the ED and then the ED stops the action – what is Any other blackmail? ? This is classic blackmail,” he said.

The next hearing will take place on October 22nd.