New Delhi: The Karnataka high court on Monday (September 30) paused the investigation into a complaint filed last week alleging that Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman and others committed extortion using electoral bonds as a pretext and “benefitted” by over Rs 8,000 crore.
In his order staying further investigation till October 22, the next date of hearing in the case, Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the high court said the complainant was not the aggrieved party in the alleged extortion case.
“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,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
He noted that it was not the case of the complainant, one Adarsh Iyer who is co-president of the Janadhikara Sangharsha Parishath, that he was “put into fear to deliver any property” or that he had “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 judge added.
Section 383 of the IPC defines the offence of extortion while Section 384 prescribes the punishment for it.
Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Iyer, said as per Justice Nagaprasanna that no person put into fear by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) – one of the accused in the case – would ever come forward to complain and so investigation ought to be allowed in this case.
But Justice Nagaprasanna responded: “The submission of [Bhushan] cannot be accepted. If the offence is Section 384 of the IPC, he should necessarily be a victim who has suffered extortion from the hands of the accused. The case of the complainant is not that he has suffered.”
At the end of hearing he said that “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.”
On Saturday, police in Bengaluru filed an FIR in the case on the directions of a special court in the city.
In his complaint, Iyer named Sitharaman, BJP president J.P. Nadda, Karnataka BJP leader Naleen Kateel – in whose petition the high court delivered its order on Monday – Karnataka BJP president B.Y. Vijayendra and the ED, The News Minute reported.
Iyer alleged that the accused “committed extortion under the guise and garb of electoral bonds and benefitted to the tune of 8,000 and more crore of rupees,” PTI reported.
He also alleged that Sitharaman conspired with the ED to raid major companies in order to extort them through electoral bonds, TNM cited his complaint as saying.
Electoral bonds were interest-free financial instruments that individuals or groups could use to make anonymous donations to political parties. The BJP government introduced them in 2018.
But on February 15 this year, the Supreme Court said the bonds violated voters’ right to information and were thus unconstitutional.
The opposition has often alleged that the BJP has used ED raids as a political weapon against its opponents.
