Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against BJP State President BY Vijayendra For Allegedly Extorting Money Under Guise Of Electoral Bonds

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 17) allowed the petition filed by then Vice President and now BJP State President BY Vijayendra and quashed proceedings pertaining to an FIR registered against him for allegedly extorting money under the guise of electoral bonds. Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition following its judgment passed on December 3 in the petition filed by former BJP State president Naleen Kumar Kateel who was a co-accused in the case. Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is also an accused in the FIR. Advocate Nisha Tiwari appearing for the complainant Adarsh Iyer had argued that grounds raised in the objections filed in the case at hand were entirely different. She argued that the order passed earlier in Kateel's case was per-incuriam. The conclusion that a non-aggrieved person cannot raise a complaint is an erroneous observation made by the court. She claimed that "All of us and in particular this Court is here for the cause of justice'.” After hearing the submissions the court noted that the petitioner accused no 5 (Vijayendra) had sought that the high court had with respect to accused no 4 (Kateel), after hearing the same complainant (Iyer) at length had reserved the matter on November 20, and had rendered its judgment on December 3 (wherein it had quashed the case against Kateel). The petitioner had said that though the "finding in the order" was with respect to all the accused, "since order depicted that it was qua the petitioner the present petitioner (Vijayendra) has knocked on the doors of the court, who is arrayed as A-5”. Referring to the 29 judgments relied by the complainant the court noted that the Supreme Court judgment referred in the case of M.R. Ajayan Versus State of Kerala and Others, Criminal Appeal No. of 2024, decided on November 20, 2024, cannot be made applicable to the present case. The court said “The judgments placed reliance upon is placed reliance upon on the score that she was not the arguing counsel at the time when the matter was heard qua A-4 and disposed and these grounds which the counsel is now wanting to project are entirely different. It said “The counsel being changed for qua the other accused raising different grounds that were not raised by the complainant's counsel qua the A-4 cannot now be entertained.” It added “As this court has already rendered a finding as regards to A-4 and there being no change whatsoever in the complaint with regard to present accused or any other accused for that matter. Hearing the matter all over again would amount to this court sitting in appeal over its own order and permitting the counsel to argue all over again which have all been considered and rejected.” Rejecting the contention of the earlier order being per-incuriam the court said, “Since, it is the issue qua the co-accused, complaint being verbatim similar qua all the accused and the finding rendered would enure to the benefit of all the accused, this court would not sit in appeal over its own order, and render a different finding qua the present accused. Therefore any amount of submission made or judgments projected before this court would not mean that there can be review or a rehearing of the order already passed by this court. It is always open to the complainant to avail such remedy as is available in law against the order passed by this court and not the submission that is now projected against the co-accused.” Further it said “I reiterate that there is no difference of facts in the complaint between the present petitioner and co-accused A-4 in whose favour the criminal petition has been decided. Therefore finding no merits in the contentions that are advanced by the counsel for the respondent. I deem it appropriate to follow the order passed by this court and obliterate the crime. Allowed and quashed.” Finally, it said “Power to recall its own order is inherent like the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceeding under Section 482 CrPC. The power may be available, the exercise of it is a discretion. Therefore, I exercise my discretion not to take a different decision on what decision has been taken earlier by the court.” Case Title: B Y Vijayendra AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: CRL.P 13192/2024Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 517

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against BJP State President BY Vijayendra For Allegedly Extorting Money Under Guise Of Electoral Bonds

Mustafa Plumber

Tags