Electoral Bonds Extortion: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Former State BJP President Naleen Kumar Kateel

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 3) quashed proceedings pertaining to an FIR registered against former BJP State president Naleen Kumar Kateel for allegedly extorting money under the guise of electoral bondsThe high court in its order said that the complainant in the case was alien to the alleged transaction and an alien cannot complain of extortion. It further said in its order that the complaint suffers from want of locus to register the complaint. The court further observed in its order that "not even a modicum" of ingredients of the alleged offence have made out even in its "prima facie sense", and what the complainant had projected is a "huge hocus-pocus", but he in fact has "no locus". Earlier today the Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order had said, "Petition allowed. Proceedings stand quashed qua the petitioner". The high court had on November 20, reserved its order on the petition filed by Kateel, seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him for allegedly extorting money under the guise of electoral bonds. Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is also a co-accused in the case.The complaint was filed by one Adarsh Iyer alleges that action by government agencies like ED was used to threaten companies and make them buy electoral bonds. Taking cognizance of the same the Magistrate court had directed registration of FIR. Earlier by way of interim order the court had stayed further investigation in the case.In its order the high court while referring to IPC section 383 which pertains to extortion said, "For offence of extortion, element of consent by putting the victim in fear of injury is imperative."Following which it said, "The petitioner or other accused should have put the complainant in fear for delivery of property. 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." It added that iff a "victim had complained" that he had purchased electoral bonds it would have been an "altogether different circumstance". The court said that offence of extortion was not made out in the present case with respect to the petitioner. It said, "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 Section120-B of the IPC. 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." Dealing with the contention of whether the complainant, could be considered to be an aggrieved person, the court noted that the complainant is Co-President of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath and admittedly is "not the victim". The court noted that it was not the complainant's case that he has been put into fear for delivery of any property and the property has been delivered by him to the accused. It said, "Therefore, he is alien to the alleged transaction or the observations made by the Apex Court."Stating that Section 39 of Criminal Procedure Code, clearly demarcates what are the offences that can be complained of by the public and person aggrieved, it said, "Any person can set the criminal law in motion only insofar as offences enumerated in Section 39 and notwithstanding the enumeration under Section 39, if the officer in-charge of the Police Station would not register the crime, it would not lead to incongruity".The high court observed that Section 33 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the corresponding provision of Section 39 of the Cr.P.C. It said that there is again no change, addition or deletion of offences enumerated in Section 39 of the Cr.P.C., in Section 33 of the BNSS. The court thus held "I have no hesitation to hold that the complaint suffers from want of locus to register the complaint even for offence punishable under Section 384 of the IPC for extortion. The learned Magistrate who has referred the matter for investigation in terms of his order supra does not advert to this issue. Merely because thecomplainant has registered a complaint which projects alleged extortion, the learned Magistrate cannot become a rubber stampPresiding Officer to the complaint, to refer the matter for investigation, without application of mind to the relevant statutory provisions". It added "He (Complainant) is an alien to the transaction and an alien cannot complain of extortion." Allowing the quashing petition the court said, "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...

Electoral Bonds Extortion: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Former State BJP President Naleen Kumar Kateel

Mustafa Plumber

Tags