Karnataka HC quashes FIR against ex-state BJP chief Nalin Kumar Kateel in electoral bonds 'extortion' case

The police had registered the FIR against union finance minister Nirmala Sitaraman, Naleen Kumar Kateel, the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), office bearers of BJP and others

Bengaluru: In a relief to Nalin Kumar Kateel, former state unit president of BJP, the Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings against him on allegations of criminal conspiracy and extortion by pressuring business entities to buy the electoral bonds in favour of his party. The court observed that not only the complainant is an alien to the transactions (purchase of electoral bonds), but also has no locus standi to maintain a complaint for extortion.

“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 CrPC, and annihilate the crime so registered against the petitioner/accused,” Justice Nagaprasanna said in his order.

Nalin Kumar Kateel had moved the court challenging the FIR registered by the Tilak Nagar police in Bengaluru city. The FIR had also named union finance minister Nirmala Sitaraman, the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), office bearers of BJP and others. The complainant Adarsh R Iyer, a city based activist, stated that the Finance Minister had taken the assistance of ED officers to conduct raids, searches, and arrest of the Managing Directors of several corporate bodies. The corporate bodies were put in fear and coercion to buy electoral bonds worth several crores, he said.

It was argued on behalf of Naleen Kateel that the offence of extortion cannot be made by the general public, but only by an aggrieved person as per the exception listed in CrPC section 39. On the other hand, Adarsh Iyer contended that the companies were also the beneficiaries in the case since the ED and CBI proceedings were stopped against them after the purchase of the electoral bonds.

Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the provisions pertaining to extortion, both in IPC and the new criminal laws, are persons specific, and can be alleged only by the aggrieved person. The court also cited the Apex Court judgement in Salib case that a theft would not require consent.

Extortion would require putting a person in fear of consent.

“Therefore, 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 Magistrate who has referred the matter for investigation in terms of this order supra does not advert to this issue. Merely because the complainant has registered a complaint which projects alleged extortion, the Magistrate cannot become a rubber stamp Presiding Officer to the complaint, to refer the matter for investigation, without application of mind to the relevant statutory provisions. Therefore, the complainant is an alien to the transaction and an alien cannot complain of extortion,” the court said.