close
close

The Supreme Court rejects the appeal against the cancellation of Karnatak Air Force against Nalin Katel

The Supreme Court rejects the appeal against the cancellation of Karnatak Air Force against Nalin Katel

Nalin Kumar Cattle. File

Nalin Kumar Cattle. File | Credit on the photo: Hindus

Supreme Court of India on Monday (February 3 2025 Carnat The decision of the highest court to Cancel the First Information Report (FIR) initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by Adarsh ​​R. Yier, the co -chair of Parishat Sanshar, against Nalin Kumra Katel, former President of Bharatius Janata Party (BJP) State Unit.

Fir called the Minister of Finance of the Union Nirmala Sitharaman and others. FIR charges based on Mr. Yer’s complaint concerned extortion. The bench of India’s Chief Judge Sanja Hann and Sanjai Kumar said she had a complaint and found a “complete assumption”.

The bench stated that the complaint does not show any material or evidence confirming the claims filed in it. “The supreme court says there is no evidence and that you (a yer) is a third party,” said Prashant Bhushan’s lawyer, who advocates for the applicant.

Fir was registered on Mr. Yer’s complaint, claiming that “solicitation” of about 8,000 crown, which pushes key persons in certain companies to buy election bonds in favor of BDP after alleged raids and searches on their companies and arrests that abuse law enforcement officials Management (ed.). “There is no evidence that would show the extortion,” said Chief Judge Hanna.

Mr. Bhushan said the complaint presented “a clear case that people were afraid of Ed Reids … Someone should go into this question.” Justice Kumar stated that the court could not delve into these statements on the basis of simple reasons.

Chief Judge Hanna stated that the election bond scheme was amazed after the Supreme Court had entered the jurisprudence concerning it. In individual matters, the courts would decide in accordance with their specific facts and circumstances.

However, the bench at its disposal specified that his decision to reject the request for a special leave was not “on the way to any person who has materials and evidence to justify VAT registration.”